TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 578X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the course of search, the basis for the same recognizes customs prevailing in the Hindu society. In the circumstances, unless the Revenue shows anything to the contrary, it can safely be presumed that the source to the extent of the jewellery stated in the circular stands explained. In the present case also the marriage of the assessee took place 25 years ago from the date of search and only jewellery was found of 1164 gms consisting of six family members. Therefore, these are not such jewellery which could not be said that could not acquired on account of marriage of the assessee and on account of the other occasions i.e birthdays of the children and various others religious occasions etc. - in favour of assessee. - I.T.A .No. 92 & 82/Del/2010 - - - Dated:- 11-10-2012 - SHRI R.K. GUPTA, AND SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, JJ. Appellant by: Sh. S.P. Agarwal, FCA Respondent by: Sh. Ramesh Chander, CIT DR ORDER PER R.K. GUPTA, JM These are two appeals filed by the assessee and the department against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-I, New Delhi dated 30.10.2009 relating Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. Common issues are involved in appeal of department as well as in appeal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... marriage and not acquired out of income. (d) In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer added Rs.43,91,970/- on account of unexplained jewellery to her income. The detail of addition is as under :- Jewellery of Smt. Savita Bansal Rs.12,36,164/- Jewellery of Smt. Sadhna Rani Rs.17,95,058/- Total ------------------ Rs. 30,31,222/- ------------------ Jewellery of Smt. Sadhna Rani Rs.17,95,058/- Less: Allowance of 500 grams valued at Rs.4,25,000/- Balance ------------------ Rs. 13,70,058 ------------------ The figure comes to Rs. 44,01,280/- but A.O. has added Rs. 43,91,970/- The appellant argued that the above addition is apparently wrong. The addition of Rs.30,21,912/- as per Assessment Order, is wrong, unfounded and multiple. The Assessing Officer has added amount of jewellery Rs.17,95,058/- of Smt. Radha Rani twice and has added value of jewellery of Smt. Savita Bansal was separately identified at the time of search. A separate valuation report for Rs. 12,36,164/- was made. It may please be noted that Smt. Savita Bansal received her bangles back at the time of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dhan of a Hindu Married Women, cannot be made as unexplained income without going into the complete facts, such as composition of family, year of marriage and other factors. (x) It was submitted that the jewellery found from Smt. Sadhna Rani and valued at Rs. 17,95,058/- also including jewellery belonging to her unmarried daughters at the time of search. It is also submitted that Smt. Sadhna Rani got married in year 1981, when the rate of 24 Carat Gold was above Rs. 1,670/- per 10 Grams only. An affidavit of the appellant is enclosed, where she has claimed that the total jewellery valuing Rs. 17,95,058/-, which includes jewellery belonging to her two unmarried daughters. She has affirmed in her affidavit that the jewellery has been received by her at the time of marriage in 1981 and later on the occasions of birth of her daughters from parents, parent-in-laws and relatives from time to time. The whole of jewellery has been claimed as her Stri Dhan received as gifts. Therefore, are not acquired out of undisclosed income or other sources. (xi) Ld. Assessing Officer has considered the jewellery relased to Smt. Sadhna Rani on dt. 18.05.2006 amounting to Rs.30,21,912/- separate from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee. However, the A.O had allowed 500 gms of jewellery of Smt. Sadhna Rani valuaded at Rs. 4,25,000/- as Stree Dhan rest of the amount (Rs.17,95,058-Rs.4,25,000) = Rs.13,70,058/- has been considered as unexplained jewellery of the assessee. As per the contention of the A.O total addition should have been (Rs.17,95,058-Rs.4,25,000) = Rs.13,70,058/- belonging to Smt. Sadhna Rani found in the Ist floor of the House Jewellery worth Rs. 12,36,164/- found from Smt. Savita Bansal in the grounds floor of the house. Therefore, the total addition could be maximum (Rs.13,70,058-Rs.12,36,164) = Rs.26,06,222/-. However, the A.O had made total additions of Rs. 43,91,970/- as unexplained jewellery which is apparently not correct. 8. The jewellery found in the ground floor of the residents from Smt. Savita Bansal has been clearly mentioned in the panchnama dated 10/12/05 the valuation report dated 09/12/05 that jewellery worth Rs. 12,36,164/- were owned by Smt. Savita Bansal residents of B-26, Ground Floor, Swasthya Vihar, Delhi. The A.O himself had specifically send a questionnaire on this jewellery to Smt. Savita Bansal to explain and stated that the jewellery were found fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med to be her only unless proved otherwise. In this case, no evidence has been pointed out to prove that the jewellery belong to any other person than Savita Rani Bansal. Savita Rani Bansal is assessed to tax separately (PAN No-AEPJB6993J) by the same A.O(ACIT, Central Crcle-12). The A.O has not brought out any reasons or evidence why the said jewellery has been assessee in the hands of Smt. Sadhna Rani. Therefore, the additions made of jewellery worth 12,36,164/- found from Savita Rani should be excluded from the assessment of the appellant and may be considered in the hand of Mrs. Savita Rani only. 9. In regards to jewellery worth Rs.17,95,058/- found from the appellant at the time of search in the first floor of the B-26, Swasthya Vihar, Delhi. The appellant had submitted under total amount of jewellery found from Smt. Sadhna Rani at the time of search from Ist floor was weighing 1164.00 grams and valued at Rs.17,95,058/- by the Department valuer. Ld. A.O has added Rs.13,70,058/- to the income of the assessee as unexplained jewellery, after allowing allowance of Rs.4,25,000/-. It is submitted that addition of jewellery being Stri Dhan of a Hindu Married Women can t be made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the building as per records available. Apparently, there is an arridmatic error in the totaling. After the search these jewelers were kept in the Almirah in Ist floor of the house and restraint order was passed. Later on these were released to Smt. Sadhna Rani vide order dated 18/05/06. Since both these jewelleries had been considered separately as discussed above there is no necessity of adding the same again in the income of the appellant as undisclosed jewellery. Therefore, the addition made by the A.O of these amounts of Rs. 30,21,912/- is without any basis and hence directed to be deleted. 6. Now, both are in appeal here before Tribunal. Ld AR of the assessee filed return submissions. On the other hand, Ld. DR firstly, stated that assessee has not filed any statement of fact as required. On merit, it was submitted that entire jewellery was found from the possession of the assessee, therefore, in view of natural presumption, entire jewellery has to be treated in her hand. Accordingly, Assessing Officer has added the entire income in the hands of the assessee. It was further submitted that Board circular does not say that jewellery should be accepted without source of acqu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,36,164/- and in ground No-3, the department is challenging the addition deleted the amount of Rs. 30,21,912/- which includes the jewellery of Rs. 12,36,164/- also belonging to Smt. Savita Bansal. In this way, grounds in respect to jewellery belonging to Smt. Savita Bansal is taken twice. In view of these facts and circumstances, ground Nos. 2 3 of the department fails. 8. Now, we will take up the issue in respect to jewellery belonging to assessee at Rs.17,95,058/-. The AO made an addition of Rs. 13,17,058/- giving a benefit of jewellery weighing 500 gms as Stri Dhan of the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) has given further benefit of 500 gms of jewellery belonging to other family member i.e son and wife of the assessee, husband and two unmarried daughters of the assessee. In this way, Ld. CIT(A) has sustained an addition of Rs. 9,45,058/-. After considering the submissions, we find that assessee deserve to succeed in her appeal on two accounts. Valuation of jewellery done by DVO comes to Rs. 1542.13 per grams and the valuation reduced by AO of 500 gms reduced @ 850 per gram. No reason has been given by the AO that why he is taking the value of 500 gms at Rs. 4,25,000/- which comes to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. The decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court which is binding in nature, is applicable on the facts of the present case. In this case, there was jewellery of only 906 gms, the Tribunal allowed benefit of 400 gms and remaining addition was confirmed. The Hon ble Delhi High Court has deleted by holding as above. 10. In the present case also the marriage of the assessee took place 25 years ago from the date of search and only jewellery was found of 1164 gms consisting of six family members. Therefore, these are not such jewellery which could not be said that could not acquired on account of marriage of the assessee and on account of the other occasions i.e birthdays of the children and various others religious occasions etc. 11. The Hon ble Gujarat High Court also decided similar issue by observing that Board circular is applicable and in view of the Board circulars,the jewellery mentioned should be accepted as explained. The Hon ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs Ratan Lal Vyapari Lal ITR 351 has held as under :- Though it is rue that the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No. 1916, dated May 11,1994, lays down guidelines for seizure of jewellery and ornaments in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
