TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d jewellery, etc. as per the circular what could be given credit for a male member is only 100 gms. No credit could be given for HUF, for the simple reason that an HUF cannot wear any jewellery by itself. Vis-a-vis silver, circular does not mention anything about holding of silver or diamonds. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the maximum relief that could be given to the assessee is only on the value of gold jewellery The maximum relief that could be given to the assessee in addition to what was given by the AO was 650 grams of gold only and accordingly , we direct the AO to give such relief alone. - I.T.A No.1144/Bang/2016 - - - Dated:- 28-3-2017 - SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Quantity in Grams a) Neeta Kumari 1050 b) Credit in terms of instruction No. 1916dated ll.05.1994, 900 c) Gift from Prameela Singh 100 d) Gold Jewellery belong to Smt. Rajkumari 600 2650 04. On verification of wealth tax returns, the A O found that the assessee s wife had declared 900 grams of gold and 10 Kgs of silver only . Accordingly, he has allowed that much quantity only as an explained one. The A O has also accepted the gift from Premeela Singh of 100 grams and gold jew ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls) has erred in confirming the same. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and the law applicable, there was no unexplained investment in jewellery and silver and therefore, the addition being unwarranted is required to be deleted. 3. In view of the above and on other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing, it is requested that the addition of ₹ 34,25,351/- as made and sustained be deleted. 06. The AR submitted that the assessee s wife Smt Neeta Bai, inter alia, had declared gold about 1050 grams and silver articles vessels about 12 Kgs in her income tax return for ay 2006-07 although in her WT returns in ays 1991-92 92-93 she had declared 900 grams of gold and 10 Kgs of silver alone. He pleaded that the pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 dt 28.11.2016 in the case of Mr P Goutham Chand. Per Contra, the DR relied on the CIT (A) order. 07. We heard the rival submissions and gone through relevant material. It is clear that Smt Neeta Bai had declared 900 grams of gold and 10 Kgs of silver only in her WT returns filed for a ys 1991-92 1992- 93. Hence , the assessee s plea can not be accepted. With regard to the benefit claimed on the basis of Circular, the relevant portion of this Tribunal order from ITA Nos 642 643/Bang/2015 for ay 2012-13 dt 14.8.2015 in the cases of S/Shri M Vimal kumar M Sanjay Kumar is extracted as under: 08. We are therefore of the opinion that assessee can always claim exclusion from undisclosed jewellery the quantum of jewellery mentioned i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed. 08. Considering all the above and following the above decision, the AO is directed to give relief to the assessee as under : a) Self 100 Grams b) Daughter (Apeksha) 250 Grams c) Daughter (Aanchal - Minor) 200 Grams e) Son (Shlok - Minor) 100 Grams 650 Grams. Thus, the maximum relief that could be given to the assessee in addition to what was given by the AO was 650 grams of gold only and accordingly , we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
