9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 936X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tnership firm which is engaged in construction business. The search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in his case on 24.02.2009. During the course of search, gold and diamond jewellery valued totally at ₹ 98,50,550/- was found from the residence of the Assessee. The diamond jewellery so found was worth ₹ 29,90,970/- and the same was surrendered by the Assessee as his undisclosed income. As regards the gold jewellery, it was explained by the assessee that the same to the extent of ₹ 44,27,370/- was belonging to one Mis.Juveria who was dealing in gold and diamond jewellery. This explanation of the assessee duly supported by the purchase bills was accepted by the AO. As regards ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elry found. Shri Rafiq Mohd. Nazir Shaikh & Family. 98,50,550/- 44,27,370/- 29,90,970/- 440,664/- 1696.9 2. At the outset, we reiterate that the appellant hails from a business community and being a man of means, he and his family members could have possessed 1850 gms of jewelry dating from the period of his marriage to the birth of his children till the date of search. 3. Further, vide Circular No. 1916, dated 11.05.1994, the Central Board of Direct Taxes has issued guidelines for seizure of jewelry, which clearly states that, "in case of a person not assessed to wealth tax, gold jewelry 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 se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rit in the submissions made on behalf of the assessee and relying on the CBDT Circular No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994 as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain 235 CTR (Guj), 568, he treated the balance gold jewellery found during the course of search as explained and deleted the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained jewellery. Aggrieved by the Order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has proffered this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing before us, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee despite the fact that the date of the said hearing was announced in the open court at the time of earlier hearing held on 17.01.2013 when the assessee sought adjournm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
