TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the jewellery found in possesssion of four ladies, was held to be reasonable and the authorized officers, in the first instance, did not seize the jewellery as it was being within the tolerable limit or the limits prescribed by the Board - the Tribunal has correctly analyzed the Circular of the Board and there was no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal – Decided against Revenue. - D. B. Income Tax Appeal No. 196/2010 - - - Dated:- 7-4-2014 - Ajay Rastogi And J. K. Ranka,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Anuroop Singhi ORDER By The Court (Per Hon'ble Ranka, J.) 1. This instant income tax appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax, Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to in short as 'Act of 1961') filed by the revenue assailing the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench 'A', Jaipur dated 15.1.2010 passed in ITA No.715/JP/09 and cross-objection No.150/JP/2009, relates to assessment year 2005-06. Though the revenue has raised as many as 07 questions which according to the revenue, are substantial questions of law, but primarily, during the course of arguments, counsel for the revenue has contended that the question no.3 pertains t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of facts evidence available on record, confirmed the order of CIT (A). Hence this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the revenue has contended that the Assessing Officer had given due credit of jewellery to the various family members. He has also contended that out of jewellery of Rs.10,53,520/-, only jewellery of Rs.2,88,176/- was found unexplained and almost 75% of the jewellery found was treated as explained by the Assessing Officer himself and only where the respondent-assessee or family members were not in position to explain the balance jewellery, the addition was made. The respondent-assessee or/and other family members were not in position to adequately explain the source of receipt of aforesaid jewellery and it was duty of the assessee to lead proper evidence, but since no evidence was led, therefore, according to the status of the respondent, Assessing Officer rightly gave credit to the respondent of 1600 gms of jewellery, and being not satisfied with the balance, made addition which was correct and justified. He has further contended that though there is circular of the Board which has been referred to by the Tribunal dated 11.5.1994, but it simply lays down that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rposes. These guidelines may please be brought to the notice of the officers in your region. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Siddhartha Mukherjee Secretary (CBDT) [F.No.286/63/93-IT(Inv.II) dt. 11.5.1994 from CBDT, New Delhi] 7. We have gone through the order of CIT (Appeals) wherein it has been observed as under: In search total gold jewellery of 2202.464 gms (net weight) was found. The jewellery was found from the bedroom of various persons, locker and on person which was identified as belonging to specific persons. The same is tabulated below:- Belongs To Found from- Smt.Anila W/o Satyendra Patni(self) Smt.Aparna W/o Chandra Prakash Patni (Eldest son) SmtPriyanka W/o Pushpendra Patni(2nd son) Smt. Ruchi W/o Girish Patni (3rd son Bank Locker 139.5 240.3 210.8 137.6 Bed rooms 315 163.2 195.1 Bed room of Satyendra patni 395 232.4 229.7 246.5 Found on person 40 15 19 32 Total gross wt 574.5 802.7 622.7 611.2 Total Net ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we fail to understand the basis of 1600 gms held reasonable by the Assessing Officer. 10. Therefore, in our view, the Tribunal has rightly considered the said issue and we are also in conformity with the order passed by the Tribunal. We are also of the view that the Central Board of Direct Taxes keeping in view the status of the family, customs and practice of the community, came down with the said circular and one has to go with the weight and not with the value as the value may fluctuate over the years. The Tribunal has also appreciated the fact on record that the marriage of three sons were performed in the year 1996, 2000 and 2003 and all the marriages including the assessee and three sons were performed prior to 2003. It is also on record that the statement of various family members were recorded and none has stated that these are not personal wearing jewellery and same were received by the respective ladies/daughter-in-law on/or at the time of their marriages either from the parental side or in-laws side and even subsequently at the time of birth of their children. 11 On perusal of the circular of the Board, quoted supra, it is clear that in the case of wealth tax asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly 'Stridhan' of the woman and normally no question at least to the said extent can be made. However, if the authorized officers or/and the Assessing Officers, find jewellery beyond the said weight, then certainly they can question the source of acquisation of the jewellery and also in appropriate cases, if no proper explanation has been offered, can treat the jewellery beyond the said limit as unexplained investment of the person with whom the said jewellery has been found. 13. Admittedly, looking to the status of the family and the jewellery found in possesssion of four ladies, was held to be reasonable and therefore, the authorized officers, in the first instance, did not seize the said jewellery as the same being within the tolerable limit or the limits prescribed by the Board and thus, in our view, subsequent addition is also not justificable on the part of the Assessing Officer and rightly deleted by both the two appellate authorities namely' CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal. 14. It can also be observed here that prior to 1992, when the exemption limit under the Wealth Tax Act was about Rs.1,00,000/- or Rs.1,50,000/-, then in most of the cases, returns were fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
