9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the appeal has been filed belatedly by 20 days. The assessee has sought condonation of delay and it has been averred in the affidavit dated 02.02.2017, a copy of which is on record, that the delay was on account of unintended reasons beyond the control of the assessee. It is averred that the concerned professional who was to file the appeal lost sight of the date by inadvertence and work pressure and there was no wilful intention in not filing the appeal. The bonafides of the averments made in the affidavit has not been assailed before us and considering the ratio of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katji & Others (167 ITR 471) the delay in filing the appeal was condoned. Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lained that he was married since 24 years and that and that his daughter was 21 years of age. The assessee referred to the CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994 to point out that in the case of a married lady existence of 500 gms of gold jewellery and 250 gms in the case of unmarried female member and 100 gms in the case of each male member is said to be acceptable and to that extent no addition is called for. The claim of the assessee was that the jewellery found at the time of search was within the permissible limits brought out in the CBDT circular dated 11.05.1994 (supra) and therefore the same ought to have been relied upon by the AO and not treat the instant jewellery as unexplained. The CIT(A), however, did not accept the plea o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attracted. It is pointed out that the case before the Hon'ble Madras High Court was governed by para (i) of the circular, which is in respect of a wealth tax assessee. Therefore, by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court as well as the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court the assessee has sought relief with regard to the jewellery found at the time of search. 7. On the other hand, the learned D.R. has reiterated the stand of AO by pointing out that the source of investment has not been bought out and therefore the claim of the assessee could not be entertained merely on the basis of the CBDT circular dated 11.05.1994 (supra). 8. We have considered the rival stands and find that so far as the factual aspect is conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stant case are squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Satya Narain Patni (supra). Therefore we find no reason to sustain the addition toward unexplained jewellery. In so far as the reliance placed by the CIT(A) on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of V.G.P. Ravidas (supra) is concerned, ostensibly it was a case where the assessee was a wealth tax payee and therefore, it was required of him to specifically show the source of jewellery found in excess of what was declared in the respective wealth tax returns. In fact the CBDT circular dated 11.05.1994 (supra) specifically contains para (ii), which prescribes that in the case of wealth tax assessees gold jewellery and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
