Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 243 - AT - Income TaxExcess of gold found during the course of search which is over and above the accepted norms or quantity - unexpalined nvestment - Held that:- Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain [2010 (7) TMI 769 - Gujarat High Court] has also taken note of social customs and norms of Hindu families where the gold or diamond jewellary is usually gifted by close relatives at the time of functions such as marriages, birthdays etc. The findings of the CIT(A) that the affidavits of the assessee’s uncle and also father-in-law does not contain specific items of jewellary may not hold much water as the parties were not examined as to exact nature of gold items presented by them. The value of the excess of gold for which the security of cash was accepted was ₹ 22,10,000/-, which is actually 50% of the gold found and seized. If the permitted or accepted quantity of gold by the A.O is taken at 500 grams excess of gold found with the assessee at 487 grams is well within the norms prescribed by the CBDT. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it cannot be treated as unexplained investment. As regards cash found at the time of search, the assessee has filed the copies of the cash book of both the assessee and his father to demonstrate that both he and his father had sufficient cash balance on the date of search. However, this was not verified by the A.O or CIT(A). In view of the same, we deem it fit and proper to remand this issue to the file of the A.O only for verification of the availability of cash balance in the assessee’s and his father’s books of account and if it is found that the assessee and his father had such cash balance, then the addition shall not be made. Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
|