9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 469X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred in passing the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Learned CIT(A)-3 has proportionately allowed the gold jewellery and ornaments weighing 700 grams and disallowed the remaining 266.5 grams. CBDT Instruction No.1916 prescribes the limit that "gold jewellery and ornaments to the extent of 500 grams per married lady, 2520 grams per unmarried lady and 100 grams per male member of the family need not be seized." The learned CIT(A)-3 has not considered the relief for gold jewellery belonging to Mrs. Mandakini Rai, Daughter in Law of the assessee (eligible for holding gold jewellery weighing 500 grams) and Ku. Ananya Rai, Grand daughter of the assessee (eligible for holding gold jewellery weighing 250 grams.) 3. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s search u/s 132 was also carried out at her residential premises. 2. During the course of search locker bearing No.632 held with Bank of Baroda was found by the search party. In the said locker the search party found gold jewellery and silver articles detailed as under S. No. Particulars Jewellery found (in Rs.) 1. Gold jewellery weighing 966.00 gram (net wt.) 24,52,309/- 2. Silver articles weighing 1960.00 gram (net wt.) 73,923/- Total 25,26,332/- 3. During the course of search statement u/s 132(4) of the assessee was recorded and in reply to question no.7 assessee stated that his family consists of herself, her husband Shri Rakesh Kumar Rai, Son Shri Rishin Rai, Daughter-in-law Smt. Mandakini Rai and Daughter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rch. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. A.O. assessee preferred appeal and reiterated the submission before the Ld. CIT(A) who hold that in view of the CBDT circular and decision relied by the assessee gold jewellery to the extent of 700 grams is reasonable and maintained the addition 266 grams. 8. Being dissatisfied from the order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee filed present appeal. Now our humble submissions before your honour are as under: (i) The Ld. CIT(A) hold that jewellery to the extent of 700 grams is reasonable the break up of which is as under: Neeta Rai (Appellant assessee) 500 grams Rakesh Kumar Rai (Assessee's husband) 100 grams Rishin Rai (assessee's son) 100 grams Total 700 grams (ii) We could not understand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 Gram Gold jewellery, 346.90 gram, Gold jewellery belongs to Smt. Neeta Rai, 477.20 Gram Gold Jewellery belongs to Smt. Mandakni Rai (Daughter-in-law) and 142.40 gram Gold Jewllery belongs to Smt. Mansi Rai Shrivastava. Out of 1960.00 Gram Silver articles, 1187.00 gram silver articles belongs to Smt. Neeta Rai, 400.00 Silver articles belongs to Smt. Mandakni Rai and 200.00 gram silver articles belongs to Smt. Mansi Rai Shrivastava. 1. Mrs. Neeta Rai did not purchase any gold or silver after her husband's retirement from Banks service in 2008. All her ornaments were acquired/received as gifts, prior to that. 2. Mrs. Mandkini (daughter in law) received all her gold as gifts from various relatives and her parents at the parents at the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee. iv. No documentary evidence has been submitted to prove that the jewellery is related to Smt. Mandakni Rai or Smt. Mansi Rai Shrivastava. v. The assessee has merely submitted a list of some of the relatives and has claimed that the jewellery has been received as gift from them, however, no documentary evidence has been submitted by the assessee to prove the gift paying capacity of these persons. vi. The assessee has failed to explain that the jewellery has been acquired out of accounted income." 7. Ld. CIT(A) gave benefit of CBDT circular to the extent of 700 gms. only. Rest of the addition was sustained. It is undisputed that before A.O., the assessee had stated that the jewellery recovered from her locker belong to other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
