TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accordingly. Appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed. - I.T.A No.642/Bang/2015, I.T.A No.642/Bang/2015 - - - Dated:- 5-8-2015 - SHRI. N. V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessee by : Shri. H. N. Khincha, CA Revenue by : Smt. Nandini Das, JCIT O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : These are appeals filed by assessees who are brothers against orders dt.21.02.2014 and 24.02.2014 respectively of CIT (A)-II, Bengaluru. 02. Appeal of Shri. M Vimal Kumar is taken up first for disposal. Facts apropos are that assessee a dealer in gold, diamond and silver jewellery had filed his return for the impugned assessment year declaring income of ₹ 46,43,263/-. Such income disclosed included a sum of ₹ 30 lakhs which as per the assessee was the value of excess jewellery found in a search held on 12.03.2012. During the course of assessment proceedings assessee was required to explain the source of gold jewellery of 1926.190 grams and silver articles weighing 69.5 kgs found at his residence. Assessee s wife had filed WT return in which 753 gms of gold and 5.4 kgs of silver were shown. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claiming credit of 1,400 gms of gold jewellery. However, CIT (A) was not impressed. According to him, the circular did not apply to the assessee since assessee s wife had already filed WT returns. Further Ld. CIT (A) noted that credit for ancestral jewellery was allowed in the hands of assessee s brother Shri. Dinesh. He thus upheld the additions. 05. Now before us, Ld. AR strongly assailing the orders of the authorities below submitted that the circular was not only with regard to seizure, but was also relevant for construing the source of jewellery found at the time of a search. According to him what was mentioned in the CBDT circular was only the minimum amount of jewellery that had to be considered as normal for a normal family under the Indian customs. Ld. AR submitted that considering the standing of the assessee in the society, it was reasonable to infer even a higher holding for his family members. Relying on the judgment of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ratanlal Vyparilal Jain [339 ITR 351], Ld. AR submitted that CBDT circular No.1916 (supra), though it was with regard to seizure of jewellery and ornaments found at the time of search, quantum mentioned there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idering 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 to give rise to a question of law. 08. We are therefore of the opinion that assessee can always claim exclusion from undisclosed jewellery the quantum of jewellery mentioned in the said circular. However, the circular allows only 100 gms per male member, 250 gms for unmarried lady and 500 gms for married lady in the family. The list mentioned by the assessee claims 200 gms each for himself and his son and 250 gms for the HUF. 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. In our opinion, the maximum relief that could be given to the assessee in addition to what was given by the AO was 950 gms, viz., 100 gms for assessee, 100 gms for assessee s son, 250 gms for assessee s daughter and 500 gms for assessee s daughter-in-law. Contention of the Ld. AR that status of the assessee had to be considered and higher relief should be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by his wife for 1992- 93, gold jewellery of 975 gms, silver articles of 12 kgs and 6 carats of diamonds were shown. As per the assessee credits for these were not given by the AO. 12. CIT (A) was of the opinion that CBDT circular No.1916 (supra) could not be extended for explaining the source of investments in gold jewellery. CIT (A) however directed relief to the assessee for 975 gms of gold, 12 kgs of silver and 6 carats of diamonds which were reflected in the WT return filed by assessee s wife for A. Y. 1992-93. However he refused to consider the claim for 1275 gms of gold mentioned contained in the financial statement filed by assessee s wife along with her return for A. Y. 2010-11. Partial relief was thus given to the assessee. 13. Now before us, Ld. AR made similar arguments as were made in the case of Vimal Kumar. He further submitted that page 25 of the paper book was a statement of account, filed by assessee s wife along with her return for A. Y. 2010-11. As per the Ld. AR this was filed much prior to the date of search and hence the gold and other jewellery mentioned therein had to be accepted. 14. Per contra, Ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
