9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred in sustaining an addition of Rs. 3,47,440/- in respect of gold jewelllery weighing 316.718 gms 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the explanation of the assessee with regard to source of acquisition of such jewellery while sustaining the addition for 316.718 gms. 3. Without prejudice to the above and in the alternative :- a) That the ld. CIT failed to consider the reasonableness of jewellery held with the family in the light of Board Circular bearing no. 1916 dated 11-05-1994 and the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Ratanlal Vayapari Lal Jain reported in 339 ITR 351. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investment in gold jewellery amounting to Rs. 7,14,183/--. Hence the balance of Rs. 7,07,474/- (Rs. 14,21,657/- Rs. 7,14,183/- ) was added back to the total income of the assessee. 2.3 Before the ld. CIT(A), the contentions of the assessee was as under:- ''I. That during the course of search at the residence and bank locker of the assessee gold jewellery weighing 1795.95 gins was found which was valued at Rs. 19,70,181/- @ Rs. 1097 per gm [ PB pg 123 to 129]. II That during the course of assessment proceeding the assessee explained the source of gold jewellery as under:- Particular Weight At the time of marriage on 30-04-1997 from father side [PB pg 131, 138] 349.920 gm (30 Tola) At the time of marriage on 30-04-1997 from father in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . VII That the assessee herself surrendered and offered to tax 652.222 gm valued at Rs.7,14,183/-. In light of above and documentary evidence on record the Id. A.O. erred in making addition of Rs. 707474/- over and above then disclosed by the assessee and as such the addition made by A.O. in respect of gold ornaments amounting to Rs. 7,07,474A may kindly be deleted. " 2.4 By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the credit of 600 gms jewellery i.e. 500 gms for the assessee (married lady) and 100 gms for husband. After giving credit of surrendered jewellery of 652.222 gms, the ld. CIT(A) held that jewellery weighing 1479.232 gms (827.010+652.222) was explained. The unexplained jewellery was worked out by the ld. CIT(A) at 316.718 gms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be considered keeping in view the Board's instruction no. 1916 dated 11.5.94. As per this instruction credit can be given to the extent of 500 grams per married lady, 250 grams per Unmarried lady and 100 grams per male married member. Further the issue as to whether when the jewellery held by the assessee and his family members as per the limit laid down under the CBDT circular will be treated as unexplained jewellery or not came before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ratanlal Vayapari Lai Jain (2011) 339 ITR 351 and Hon'ble High Court held as under: "Though it is true that the CBDT circular no. 1916 dated 11.5.94 lays down guidelines for seizure of jewellery and ornaments in the course of search, the same takes i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the basis for the same recognize customs prevailing in Hindu Society and in the circumstances unless the revenue shows anything to the contrary it can safely be presumed that source to the extent of the jewellery stated in the circular stands explained. The Hon'ble Court has accordingly held that if the jewellery so found is within the limit as per CBDTs circular, it cannot said to be of unexplained nature. Further reliance is also made on the following case laws: i) Smt. Pati Devi vs. 1TO (2000) 159 CTR 28 In the case of the appellant the family consist of the appellant i.e. married lady, her husband and two minor children therefore credit of 600 grams jewellery can be given i.e. 500 grams for married lady and 100 grams for husband. Apa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded that due credit for jewellery belonging to minor children should be allowed in addition to what has been allowed by the ld. CIT(A) in respect of the assessee and her husband. 2.6 On the other hand, Shri R.H.Gohel, ld. D.R. appearing on behalf Revenue contended that the assessee was unable to explain the jewellery received from father and father-in-law sides. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in confirming the addition to the extent of unexplained jewellery. He further contended that the assessee was unable to match the jewellery with jewellery so found during the course of search as belonging to the minor children. Accordingly, it was contended that ld. CIT(A) was perfectly justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 3,47, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
