TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 837X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h action - Held that:- As per the CBDT circular No.1916 dated 11.5.1994, the 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 need not be seized. In such circumstances, unless the Revenue shows anything to the contrary, it can be safely presumed that source to the extent of the jewellery stated in the circular stands explained. Even as per clause (iii) of the CBDT Circular (Supra), it has been mentioned that the authorized officer may, having regard to the status of the family, and the custom and practices of the community to which the family belongs and other circumstances of the case, decide to exclude a larger quantity of jewellery and ornaments from seizure. We further find that the AO the addition made by the AO also includes ₹ 61500/- on account of silver items. As observed above, out of the seized jewellery worth about ₹ 24.75 lakhs, the assessee explained the source of acquisition of the jewellery worth about ₹ 8.85 lakhs which has been duly disclosed in the returns of his family members. It is also evident that the assessee is a Charted accountant and his family i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are broker company namely Shri Sujal C. Shah, in his statement u/s 131 of the act recorded on 18-01-2007 confessed that it did not actually purchase the shares of M/s Robinson Worldwide Trade Ltd, but provided only accommodation bills. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer again summoned another the director of M/s DPS shares securities P Ltd namely shri Pratik C. Shah on 18.11.2008 and recorded his statement, wherein the said director also confirmed the fact of providing only accommodation bills in the shares of M/s Robinson Worldwide Trade Ltd. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) proposed to assess the Long term Capital gain as income of the assessee. The assessee sought for cross examination of the director of M/s DPS Shares Securities P Ltd and the same was provided by the assessing officer. In the cross examination, the director admitted that he had not accounted for the transactions relating to accommodation bills in its books of account, but maintained its stand that there was no actual delivery of shares, but only accommodation bills were given. Though the shares were found to have been sold through the D-m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this Tribunal in I.T.A. No.6747/Mum/2010 for AY 2007-08 in the case of Smt.Rooplata Jain vs. ACIT decided on 8.4.2015. On the contrary, the Ld D.R placed strong reliance on the orders of tax authorities. 6. We have considered the rival contentions. We have also perused the decision relied upon by the assessee in the case of Smt.Rooplata Jain vs. ACIT (Supra), wherein, the Tribunal has considered the identical issues of purchase and sale of shares of M/s Robinson Worldwide Trade Ltd and has observed that the evidences furnished by the assessee with regard to the purchase and sale of shares should have been discreetly examined and then a holistic view of the matter should have been taken by the tax authorities. The Tribunal in the said case has restored the matter for fresh examination to the assessing officer. The Tribunal has also directed the AO to take into account the decision rendered by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Shri Arvind M Kariya ITA NO.787/M/2010 decided on 30.12.2011. The relevant part of the order of the Tribunal in the case of Smt.Rooplata Jain vs. ACIT (Supra), for the sake of convenience, is reproduced as under: 6. Before us, the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r also, hence, in view of our discussion of the matter as above, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for the year under consideration is also set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO for decision a fresh as per the directions given above for A.Y. 2005-06. ITA No.6771/M/2011 for 2007-08 9. The assessee in this appeal has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the additions made by the AO as unexplained investments in relation to jewellery found during the search action. 10. During the course of the search operation u/s 132 of the Act, total jewellery weighing 1798 gms was found from the premises of the assessee. The gold content in diamond set was reported by the assessee at 181 gms and the remaining gold ornaments and jewellery weighed 1617 gms. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to show cause why jewellery to the extent reflected in the return of income should not be considered as explained and the rest of jewellery should not be treated as unexplained and added to the income of the assessee. 11. The assessee explained that the gold jewellery belonged to him and his family members i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the addition made by the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 13. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that apart from the jewellery treated by the AO as explained ,the assessee was entitled to further relief of 160gms. of jewellery as declared by the assessee during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings for A.Y. 1998-99. He accordingly granted relief to the assessee pertaining to 160 gms of jewellery @ ₹ 774/- per gram as adopted by the Assessing Officer calculated at ₹ 1,23,840/-. He accordingly reduced the addition made by the Assessing Officer to ₹ 15,91,447/- . Aggreived by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has come in appeal before us. 14. We have heard the rival contentions. As per the CBDT circular No.1916 dated 11.5.1994, the 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 need not be seized. The family of the assessee consists of 3 male members i.e. Assessee himself, his father and son, two married ladies i.e. his wife and mother, one unmarried lady i.e. his daughter. The Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ratanlal Vy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
