Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 837 - AT - Income TaxAssessment of long term capital gain as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 - Held that:- Persuing the decision relied upon by the assessee in the case of “Smt.Rooplata Jain vs. ACIT” (2015 (7) TMI 637 - ITAT MUMBAI), wherein, the Tribunal has considered the identical issues of purchase and sale of shares of M/s Robinson Worldwide Trade Ltd and has observed that the evidences furnished by the assessee with regard to the purchase and sale of shares should have been discreetly examined and then a holistic view of the matter should have been taken by the tax authorities. The Tribunal in the said case has restored the matter for fresh examination to the assessing officer. The Tribunal has also directed the AO to take into account the decision rendered by the co-ordinate bench in the case of “Shri Arvind M Kariya” [2011 (12) TMI 509 - ITAT MUMBAI]. Thus we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) and restore all the issues to the file of the AO to decide the same a fresh - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Unexplained investments in relation to jewellery found during the search action - Held that:- As per the CBDT circular No.1916 dated 11.5.1994, the gold jewellery and ornaments to the extent of 500 gms per married lady, 250 gms per unmarried lady and 100 gms per male member of the family need not be seized. In such circumstances, unless the Revenue shows anything to the contrary, it can be safely presumed that source to the extent of the jewellery stated in the circular stands explained. Even as per clause (iii) of the CBDT Circular (Supra), it has been mentioned that the authorized officer may, having regard to the status of the family, and the custom and practices of the community to which the family belongs and other circumstances of the case, decide to exclude a larger quantity of jewellery and ornaments from seizure. We further find that the AO the addition made by the AO also includes ₹ 61500/- on account of silver items. As observed above, out of the seized jewellery worth about ₹ 24.75 lakhs, the assessee explained the source of acquisition of the jewellery worth about ₹ 8.85 lakhs which has been duly disclosed in the returns of his family members. It is also evident that the assessee is a Charted accountant and his family is having good financial status. The possession of a jewellery worth value of about ₹ 24.75 lakhs by the assessee and his family members cannot be said to be improbable or beyond the source of income of the assessee and his family members. Some of the jewellery had been duly shown by the wife of the assessee in her return even prior to her marriage. His mother has been assessed to income tax for the last 30 years. Assessee himself is assessed to tax for the last 20 years. Assessee and his mother have also disclosed a part of the jewellery purchased in earlier years in their returns. Thus in the light of CBDT circular and decision of “CIT vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain”(2010 (7) TMI 769 - Gujarat High Court ) as well as the explanation submitted by the assessee, it cannot be said to be a case of unexplained jewellery. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|