GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (6) TMI 761 - ITAT DELHI

2015 (6) TMI 761 - ITAT DELHI - TMI - Unaccounted jewellery - joint family system - search u/s 132 - Held that:- Revenue has in some cases considered the jewellery found in the possession of one family members, as jewellery belonging to the other family member. It is undisputed that all these family members are residing together. Under these circumstances the submissions of the assessee that jewellery cannot be said to be kept in water tight compartments in joint hindu families and that the jewe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

frequently by the ladies of the house, is a possible explanation. In any event the additions in this case was made on the basis of values of jewellery and not on the basis of quantitative tally. The assessee in this case explained that ₹ 3 lakhs is the value of 60 tolas as gold ornaments as on 3.7.2002, the date of her marriage, which was duly declared by her, in her I.T.returns. The value of these 60 tolas, as on the date of search is fixed at ₹ 11,59,032/- by the valuer. Deduction .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

be drawn against the assessee.

Addition made on account of unexplained investments in jewellery in the hands of the assessee, is devoid of merit. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A.No. 5279/DEL/2012 - Dated:- 17-6-2015 - Shri I.C. Sudhir and Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, JJ. For the Petitioner: Sh.Salil Agrawal, Adv. And Sh.Shailesh Gupta, CA. For the Respondent: Sh. Vivek Wadekar, CIT, DR ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the Assessee directed a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Shri Sat Pal, Grand mother-in-law Smt. Sheela Devi. On 14-10-2008 , a search u/s 132 was conducted at the residence of the assessee and total jewellery valued at ₹ 1,03,66,9821- was found from the house. Panchnamas were prepared in the names of ladies only. Details of jewellery found are as under:- Jewellery Found as on 14.10.2008 Name Jewellery found on the date of seizer 14.10.2008 Value on the date of 14.10.2008 Jewellery Seized Value of Jewellery Seized Jewellery not Seized Value of J .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ewellery at the time of search. Jewellery available as per records with each members Name of the Member Jewellery held as on 31.3.1999 in grams Value of jewellery held as on 31.3.1999 value as on 14.10.2008 as per rate applied by the valuer at the time of search - Rs. Chameli Devi Since this includes Dimond studded Jewellery. This has been valued at ₹ 34,06,696/- on I 31.03.20081 Therefore, value on the date of search is adopted the same. 1,555.01 34,06,696/- Jewellery declared at the time .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

a Jindal 696.00 8,70,000/- Total jewellery held by the family residing at II C/95, Nehru Nagar 9182.05 gms 1,29,99,671/- 3. The Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee that : (a) the excess gold found in the assessee s room actually belongs to her fatherin- law and mother-in-law; (b) The value of 60 tolas of gold as on date of search i.e. 14.10.2008 was not given credit and value of 60 tolas gold as on date of marriage in the year 2002 was given credit. 4. Aggrieved the assesse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the jewellery as on 2002. The claim of the assessee was rejected in the following words. However, the appellant s argument that rest of the jewellery was belonging to father-in-law and was lying in her possession, is not acceptable for the following reasons: (a) No such stand was taken during search. The appellant should have Pointed out, during inventorisation that a portion of jewellery found in possession was actually belonging to her father-in-law and mother-in-law. (b) If some of the jewell .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

12,00,000/-) is treated as unexplained jewellery and is required to be added as income of the appellant from undisclosed sources on account of unexplained investment. The addition of ₹ 22,02,245/- is thus restricted to the extent of ₹ 13,02,245/- . 5. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us on the following grounds. 1. That the ALd.CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in sustaining an addition of ₹ 13,02,245/- representing the value of jewellery found during search .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

for the assessee and Shri Vivek Wadekar, Ld.CIT, D.R. on behalf of the Revenue. 7. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee reiterated the contentions raised by him before the lower authorities. He pointed out to the total jewellery found at the residence of the assessee as well as the value of the jewellery, by furnishing a chart. The chart explained the jewellery found in search on 14.10.2008 at the residence of the family members of the assessee, and their stand in respective assessment proceedings a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ime of search Chameli Devi [Since this includes Diamond studded jewellery. This has been valued at 34,06,096/- as on 31.03.2008. AS PER W.T. return 1,555.01 3,406,096 for AY 2008-09. Therefore value on the date of search is adopted the same. Jewellery declared at the time of search to the period from 01.04.2008 to 13.10.2008 in the case of Chameli Devi. 2,400.00 3,000,000 Vijay Jindal Jewellery held since 01.04.1999[ Left out of VDIS] Value declared in W.T. for 08-09 is ₹ 607485/- 409.00 5 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he jewellery found in one room cannot be treated as only belonging to the lady living in the room simply because annexure to Panchnama has been drawn in the name of the lady, though no warrant has been issued against the lady. (c) It is clear that certain jewellery recorded in the panchnama drawn in the name of the lady, was considered as jewellery of male members on whose name warrant of search has been drawn up. This is evident from the assessment of Shri Vijay Jindal and Shri Sunil Jindal. It .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in the case of Sh. Sunil Jindal. 7.1. Ld.DR on the other hand submitted that, on the date of the search, the assessee did not explain that the excess jewellery actually belongs to her mother in law. He submits that this explanation is an after thought. Further he submitted that the items of jewellery as appearing in the list of jewellery of father in law and mother in law has not tallied with the items of jewellery ;found in the possession of the assessee. He relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ders of the authorities below, we hold as follows. 10. The total jewellery found at the residence of the assessee is as under. Chart-A Name in which Annexure is drawn Jewellery found on the date of seizer 14.10.2008 Value as determined by the department on the date of 14.10.2008 In Rupees Champa Jindal common name of Chameli Devi [ Mother-in-law of the Appellant ) Gold Net Weight 3279.5 Grams Diamonds 232 Ct. 6,080,037 Chameli devil Mother-in-law of the Appellant 1 Annexure J of Panchnama in res .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the family have disclosed the respective gold and jewellery in their respective returns of income and as to how the AO and wherever the assessee had gone in appeal, the appellate authority had dealt with the disclosure. This is extracted below. Chart showing explanation in respect of jewellery found in search on 14.10.2008 at II C-95, Nehru Nagar, Ghaziabad tendered by all the members of the family in their respective assessment proceedings and position of assessment and appeals before CIT(A) i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

) Accepting the explanation of the assessee, no addition was made on account of jewellery by AO Copy of assessment order is on pages 55-57 of paper book. Jewellery declared at the time of search pertaining to the period from 1.4.2008 to 13.10.2008 in the case of Vijay Jindal 2.400.00 3,000,000 In explanation common chart placed above was relied upon. - Do - Sunil Jindal Husband of Ruta Jindal Required to explain jewellery for value of ₹ 95,63,372/- i.e. jewellery found from the rooms of Vi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

A) accepted that jewellery worth the value of ₹ 8339150/- was explained in the hands of Chameli Devi and Vijay Jindal and therefore jewellery worth ₹ 7062837/- was well explained. Thus admittedly the jewellery found from the room of Vijay Jindal and Chameli Jindal (father in law and mother in law was short by ₹ 1276313/- Shhela Devi 603.70 801,900 Required to explain jewellery found in search. Addition of ₹ 129625/-. Addition deleted holding that jewellery of husband shou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

se family members are residing together. Under these circumstances the submissions of the assessee that jewellery cannot be said to be kept in water tight compartments in joint hindu families and that the jewellery of one family member is given to the other member for use only and that the jewellery found in the possession of one member could belong to another member of the family, is a possible explanation. Further the amount of jewellery found short in the hands of the mother in law and father .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version