TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 918X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f payment of ₹ 5,25,000/- as a substitute against the total jewellery against, which no seizure was effected. Further, it was explained that search party was satisfied with the explanation and on the basis of total number of family members. In his written submission dated 5.12.2008, it was submitted that the jewellery was received on marriage and various other ceremonies. Further, in it was claimed that with regards to members in the family, the jewellery found is well within the limits of CBDT instruction no.1916 dt 11.5.1994. 2.1 The Assessing Officer recorded that the assessee could not submit all the details such as purchase bills, gift deed, proof of gift received, proof that the gifts are received on various occasions. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee made investment in Assessment Year 2006-07, which are not recorded in the books of account and also could not prove the source of income for such investment. Consequently, addition of ₹ 16,23,370/- was mad u/s 69A of the I T Act. 3 On appeal, the CIT(A) gave part relief to the assessee to the extent of the quantity of the jewellery as per the limit prescribed in CBDT instruction no.1916 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 Diamond Bracelet 37 1994 2 Chain 35 1 1994 3 Bracelet 45 1 1994 Received in Marriage from Mother by Meeta 1 Half se 80 3 1994 2 Bangles 150 6 1994 3 Patia 75 2 1994 Received in Marriage from Mother in laws by Meeta 1 Kada 70 2 1994 2 Bangles 25 10 1994 3 Chain 4 1 1994 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly of the assessee as gift on various occasions. Even the assessee did not produce bills, gift deed and proof of gifts receipts and therefore, the Assessing Officer is justified in making the addition. The ld DR submitted that the circular relied upon by the assessee as well as the CIT(A) for giving relief is relevant for the purpose of search and seizure action and the instructions are only for seizure of jewellery of small quantity in the course of search operation u/s 132 of the Act and the same cannot be taken as explained source of the jewellery. 5 We have considered the rival contention and perused the relevant material on record. During the course of search action, statement of the assessee was recorded u/s 132 of the I T Act. The assessee explained the source in the said statement while giving answer to question 17 as under: Qus: 7 During the course of search the jewellery was valued by the Govt approved valuer of ₹ 1,54,340/- all thee jewellery includes some diamond jewellery of ₹ 79,880/-. L. State to whom all the jewellery belongs to and tell the source of its acquisition . Ans: All the jewellery belongs to my wife. The diamond jewellery are bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence of any documentary evidence the appellant s claim and contention for receipt of jewellery by him and his wife cannot be accepted as true. However, since the a appellant belonged to joint Hindu family where it was customary for the members to receive some jewellery on various occasions, the appellant and his wife deserve to be allowed the benefit as per CBDT instruction n.1916. The net weight of gold jewellery found in the locker stood at 1010.500 gms in addition to the value of diamond jewellery at ₹ 4,90,750/-. The appellant has argued that jewellery found in the locker was well within the limits of CBDT instruction no.1916 dt11.5.1994 which is not correct. As per the aforesaid instruction, the gold jewellery and ornaments to the extent of 500 gms per married lady and100 gms per male member of the family were not required to be sized. Therefore, even if the claim of the appellant is to be considered in the light of the aforesaid instructions, the gold jewellery up to the extent of 600 gms (100 gms for the appellant and 500 gms for the wife) only could be treated as explained. Therefore, the balance gold jewellery weighing 410.50 gms remained unexplained and its value at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mstances of the case, decide to exclude a larger quantity of jewellery and ornaments from seizure. This should be reported to the Director of Income Tax/Commissioner authorising he search at the time f furnishing the search report. iv) In all cases, a detailed inventory of the jewellery and ornaments found must be prepared to be used for assessment purposes. 6 The scope of the circular cannot be expanded beyond the facts of the case and material brought on record. Moreover, the benefit of the circular is available for the purpose of seizure of the jewellery found during the course of search action and consequential block assessment. 7 In the case in hand, the assessment is a regular assessment and therefore, the benefit of the circular could not be available beyond the explanation and claim of the assessee at the time of statement recorded u/s 132 when there is no material and evidence to prove the contrary. 8 Having regarded the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the CIT(A) has taken a correct and proper view in granting the benefit of the circular no.1916 dt 11.5.1994. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the cross appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
