TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1038X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount to overlooking the realities of life - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 5259/DEL/2017 - - - Dated:- 16-3-2018 - Shri H.S. Sidhu, Judicial Member Assessee by : Sh. Gautam Jain, Advocate Sh. Lalit Mohan, CA Revenue by : Sh. V.K. Jiwani, Sr. DR. ORDER The Assessee has filed the Appeal against the Order dated 18.06.2015 of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2011-12 on the following grounds:- 1.) That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -2, New Delhi has erred in deciding the appellate proceedings by confirming the additions made by the learned Assessing Officer without providing a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to submit and substantiate his claim on the additions made by the Learned Assessing. 2.) That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -2, New Delhi has erred in confirming an addition a sum of ₹ 10,65,312.00 on account of purported unexplained jewelery claimed by the appellant without appreciating the fact that the jewelery found during the course of search and seizure operations was from the locker in law and husband of the appellant and hence the addition in the hands of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Silver utensils 1283 gms Rs.58100/- The assessee was asked to explain the above with books of accounts and to give source of acquisition of the same with proper evidence vide questionnaire dated 15.10.2012. The assessee replied vide letter dated 14.3.2013 through his authorized representative that out of total jewellery found, 580.400 gm gold [133.200gms + 447.200J was her streedhan given by her parents and relative at the time of her marriage with Sanjeev Soni on 25.8.1990. Out of total jewellery found in locker no.817, gold jewellery having weight of 598.800 gms and 1.283 Kg silver utensils /coins belonged to her mother in law, Late Smt. Sarita Soni who died on 3.12.2005 which was her streedhan. Further, the assessee has relied upon instruction no. I 916 dated 11.5.1999 issued by CBDT for the purpose of guiding the investigation teams of the Department regarding seizure of jewellery in case of persons who are not assessed to wealth tax. The assessee is also relied upon decision by Hon'ble Delhi High court given on 05.07.20 11 in the case of Sh. Ashok Chaddha vs. ITO wherein the court has held that streedhan in the fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that marriages of mother in law had taken place 53 years prior to the search and marriage of the assessee had taken place 20 years. He further stated that the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Ashok Chadha vs. ITO reported in 14 taxmann.com 57 (Delhi.) has accepted the jewellery of 906.60 grams in the case of married lady even without documentary evidence as the denying the explanation would tantamount to overlooking the realities of life. He further stated that CBDT Instruction no. 1916, dated 11.5.1992, lays down guidelines for seizure of jewellery and ornaments in the course of search takes into account the quantity of jewellery which would generally be held by the family members of an assessee. The Circular does not specifies the conditions in which it is applicable in other words wherein the term person contained in the circular would refer only to living member of the family and not female members who an account of untimely death, leave behind jewellery, which according to Hindu traditions is kept safe with daughter in law. He further stated that AO has not brought any material to hold that the aforesaid circular would not apply to immediate deceased family member ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gwith copy of affidavit of Smt. Suneela Soni and details of jewellery of in lockers; copy of affidavit purchased by Sh. Shiv Sunder Soni, son of late Sh. MG Soni alongwith details of jewellery in lockers; copy of judgment of Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Radha Kishan Soni vs. CIT reported in 277 ITR 56 and copy of judgment of Hon bel High Court of Delhi in the case of Ashok Chadha vs. ITO reported in 14 taxmann.com 57 (Delhi.) inventory of other valuables, locker keys , FDR etc.; copy of inventory of cash found but not seized; report of valuation of jewellery. I find that AO has made the addition of ₹ 10,65,312.00 on account of purported unexplained jewelery claimed by the assessee without appreciating the fact that the jewelery found during the course of search and seizure operations was from the locker held by the father in law and husband of the assessee and hence the addition in the hands of the assessee is uncalled for. It was noted that jewellery found from the joint lockers was explained to be belonging to Late mother in law of the assessee Smt. Sarita Soni, however, the AO has rejected this contention. It is further noted that assessee s belongs to joint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the financial dealings which were within his knowledge and no paper or document was found to indicate that this jewellery belonged to the appellant and that it was undisclosed income of the assessment year 2006-07. In a search operation, no scope is left with the tax department to make addition on subjective guess work, conjectures and surmises. It was also argued that jewellery is streedhan of the assessee's wife, evidenced in the form of declaration which was furnished by motherin- law of the assessee stating that she had given the jewellery in question to her daughter. She argued that it is a normal custom for a woman to receive jewellery in the form of marriage and other occasions such as birth of a child. The assessee had been married more than 25-30 years and acquisition of the jewellery of 906.900 grams could not be treated as excessive. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand relied upon the reasoning given by the authorities below. After considering the aforesaid submissions we are of the view that addition made is totally arbitrary and is not founded on any cogent basis or evidence. We have to keep in mind that the assessee was married for mor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
