Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

S.C. Verma Versus ACIT, Cent. Circle 1, Faridabad And Vice-Versa

Search action u/s 132(1) - jewellery found from the bed room of the assessee’s son and locker of his daughter-in-law - Held that:- The search was conducted at the residential premises of the assessee in House No. 34, First Floor, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, wherein all the family members were living jointly, albeit in separate rooms. It is an admitted position that no separate assessments have been made for the other family members. It is further seen that the assessee at no stage admitted tha .....

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-law, both of whom are separately assessed to tax, cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee. In our considered opinion, the ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in excluding from consideration the value of jewellery found in the bed room and locker of the assessee’s daughter-in-law.

Applicability or otherwise of Instruction No.1916 dated 11.5.1994 - no seizure of jewellery can be made upto 500 gms belonging to a married lady, 250 gms. belonging to unmarried girls and 100 gms belonging .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gms. as explained without there being any positive evidence, any jewellery over and above that can be treated as explained only if the assessee leads some positive evidence about the declared source of such excess investment in gold jewellery. We, therefore, affirm the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) in treating jewellery to the extent of 136.800 gms as explained. In the ultimate analysis, the impugned order is upheld. - ITA No. 3763/Del/2012, ITA No. 3757/Del/2012 - Dated:- 18-5-2016 - Shri R. S. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, certain cash, jewellery and other documents were found. Total jewellery weighing 2327.6 gms. valued at ₹ 41,67,837/- was found from the assessee and his family members, detailed as under:- i) Jewellery belonging to Smt. Neelam Verma W/o Sh. Subash Chander Verma from the residence at N-34, 1st Floor, GK Part I, N Delhi. Rs.13,87,056/- ii) Locker No.727 Alaknanda Vaults Pvt. Ltd., N Delhi belonging to Smt. Neelam Verma Rs.8,22,520/- iii) Locker No.726 Alaknanda Vaults Pvt. Ltd., N Delhi be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ns of any wealth tax return, etc., the AO made addition for the entire value of jewellery found during the course of search at ₹ 41,66,837/-. The ld. CIT(A) excluded from consideration the jewellery belonging to the assessee s son and daughter-in-law which was found from their exclusive bed room and locker. He took up the remaining amount of jewellery found from the assessee s bed room and locker belonging to his wife. Such jewellery totaled at 1236.80 gms. By allowing benefit of Instructi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

up by the ld. DR is about the exclusion by ld. CIT(A) from consideration in the hands of the assessee, the jewellery found from the bed room of the assessee s son and locker of his daughter-in-law. We have noticed that total jewellery of 2327.600 gms was found from the bed rooms of the assessee and his son and two lockers, viz., one in the name of the assessee s wife and the other in the name of the assessee s daughter-in-law. In response to question no. 3, during the course of statement recorde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mises of the assessee in House No. 34, First Floor, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, wherein all the family members were living jointly, albeit in separate rooms. It is an admitted position that no separate assessments have been made for the other family members. It is further seen that the assessee at no stage admitted that the entire jewellery belonged to him alone. Au contraire, he specifically submitted that the jewellery belonged to all the family members. The factum of the assessee s daughter .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

consideration the value of jewellery found in the bed room and locker of the assessee s daughter-in-law. The impugned order is, therefore, upheld pro tanto. 5. The next issue is about the applicability or otherwise of Instruction No.1916 dated 11.5.1994. As per this CBDT Instruction, no seizure of jewellery can be made upto 500 gms belonging to a married lady, 250 gms. belonging to unmarried girls and 100 gms belonging to males. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition to the extent of 1100 gms from .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d that the Instruction No.1916 issued by the Board cannot be considered for making addition on account of unexplained investment. However, we find that this Instruction has been held to be applicable in the context of making addition u/s 69A/69B by the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Satyanarain Patni (2014) 366 ITR 325 (Raj). Similar view was earlier taken by the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Kailash Chand Sharma (2015) 146 Taxmann 376 (Raj). The Hon ble Karnataka High Court 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

l under jurisdiction of any of the above High Courts holding for or against the applicability of this Instruction in the context of making addition as well. Thus, it is apparent that the predominant view of the Hon ble High Courts is in favour of applying the mandate of Instruction in treating the explanation of jewellery as justified. Going with the mandate of the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court, Hon ble Karnataka High Court and Hon ble Gujarat High Court, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) was justified .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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