TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee on account of gold jewellery which represents Streedhan of family members of the assessee’s family. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the same. The AO has also made an addition of ₹ 2,75,773/- on account of cash found during the course of search. From the record we found that during the said search action, cash of ₹ 3,05,773/- was found, It was stated that ₹ 2,25,000/· belonged to the appellant's married daughter who was then staying with him, The balance ₹ 80,773/- belonged to his nephew Anil Vanani, from whose bank account it was withdrawn and was reflected in the books of account of M/s Niru Impex. However, no confirmation from Nidhi Devani or evidence with regard to source of generation of cash in her hands has been filed. The AO also observed that she is not assessed to tax and has not definite source of income. Accordingly, we confirm the addition of ₹ 2,25,000/- treated by the AO as unexplained cash. In respect of ₹ 80,773/-, we found that this amount was withdrawn by Anil Vanani, nephew of assessee from his bank account and was reflected in his books of account of M/s Niru Impex. Accordingly, we direct the AO to dele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missions of the appellant, It is a fact that most Indian ladies, depending upon her status and surrounding circumstances, possess ornaments and jewellery. As an established custom, jewellery is acquired on ceremonial occasions and is gifted/ presented by relatives and friends, The said CBDT instruction no, 1916 was issued in recoqnttion of this reality, The instruction provides some acceptable benchmark ill respect of jewellery found, depending upon the social status/ customs/ practices of a family, This has been affirmed in a number of cases, including in the recent case of Ashok Chaddha (ITA/2011 dated 05,07,2011, Delhi), upon which reliance has been placed by the appellant. The appellant has claimed that in his case, the jewellery found is far below the 'acceptable benchmarks' laid down by the CBDT, While the jewellery found falls within the yardstick set by the CBDT, the AO has not adopted any valid or proper yardstick to allow the acceptance of ₹ 50,000/- per female member of the appellant's family, The real problem in the case is that the appellant has given a very general explanation to take advantage of the CBDT Instruction without giving the actual detail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0.00 Total 49,84,841.00 The following are the female members staying at the residence as was noted by the DDI(Inv.) :- Smt. AmruLaben Variani - Wife Smt. Rarnubcn vanani - Mother Smt. Nidhi Devani - Daughter Smt. Asha A. Vanani - Daughter-in-law Smt. Kewal A. Vanani - Daughter-in-law Ms. Ruby Vanani - Unmarried daughter 6. The inventory of the jewellery found at the residence indicates that it was of primarily of female design/use and related to the women who resided there. It is not out of place to mention that streedhan in India is a sign of dignity, prestige, social status symbol and wealth tor a lady. As an established custom, jewellery is acquired on ceremonial occasions like marriages, birthdays, anniversaries, important festivals/rituals etc. It is gifted and pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the female members of the family of the assessee is holding less than 500 gms. of gold jewellery and therefore, the same should have been accepted as explained jewellery considering the status of the assessee and the business of dealing in diamonds for more than three decades. In this respect Instructions of the CBDT bearing No.1916 dated 11th May, 1994 wherein the officers of the Department were directed not to seize gold jewellery and ornaments to the extent of 500 gms. per married lady, 250 gms. per unmarried lady and 100 gms. per male member of the family in the case of a person who is not assessed to wealth-tax. 7. In view of the aforesaid Instruction of the CBDT the gold jewellery found from the premises of the assessee from five female members ought to have been accepted as explained as the same is much lesser than the limit of gold ornaments not to be seized in a case of a person not assessed to wealth-tax. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kishinchand Uttamchandani v. DCIT in ITA(SS)A NO.77/Mum/2007 dated 30th September, 2011, after considering the instructions of the CBDT held as under: 8. We have carefully considered the submissions of Ld. Rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... members of an assessee belonging to an ordinary Hindu household. The approach adopted by the Tribunal in following the said circular and giving benefit to the assessee, even for explaining the source in respect of the jewellery being held by the family is consonance with the general practice in Hindu families whereby jewellery is gifted by the relatives and friends at the time of social functions, viz., marriages, birthdays, marriage anniversary and other festivals. These gifts are customary and customs prevailing in a society cannot be ignored. Thus although the circular had been issued for the purpose of non-seizure of jewellery during the course of search, the basis for the same recognizes customs prevailing in 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. Thus, the approach adopted by the Tribunal in considering the extent of jewellery specified under the said circular to be a reasonable quantity, cannot be faulted with. In the circumstances, it is not possible to state that the Tribunal has committed any legal error so as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
