TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly AO is directed to reduce the addition from INR 170,000 to INR 50,000 only. Accordingly ground number 1 of the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Unexplained jewellery found from the residence and locker of the appellant - assessee submitted that the above jewellery belonging to her brother-in-law Mr Sanjay Jain and his family who kept this jewellery in her custody before moving to the United Kingdom - HELD THAT:- After granting benefit of 87 g of jewellery belonging to the other relative the net jwelery remains is of 2255.81 g. Assessee submitted a chart of her family members and stated that according to the instruction number 1916 the assessee must get the benefit of 2550 g of jewellery. The claim of the assessee is also supported by the decision in case of in CIT vs Ratanlal Veparilal Jain [2010 (7) TMI 769 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. Therefore we set aside the whole issue back to the file of the learned assessing officer with a direction to follow the decision of the honourable Gujarat High Court and grant assessee the benefit of instruction number 1916. Accordingly this ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed with above direction. Unexplained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer on account of unexplained income in the form of cash found from the locker of the appellant in Bank of India, Ghantaghar, Ghaziabad u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Brief facts shows that search under section 132 of the income tax act was carried out an assessee on 30/09/2013. During the search cash of INR 1 03800/was found belonging to the appellant son Mr Vivek Jain and INR 1 70000/ was found from the locker in the name of the assessee and his wife. Therefore the total cash found during the search was INR 2 73800. The learned assessing officer made the addition of INR 170,000 found from the locker of the appellant to the income of the appellant under section 69A of the income tax act which has been upheld by the learned CIT A. Therefore assessee has challenged the above addition in this appeal. 4. Before the learned assessing officer the assessee tried to explain above sum of INR 170,000 stating various explanations which was found contradictory to each other. Vide letter dated 20/1/2016 the assessee submitted that the above Cash is out of savings from various family members and out of the gifts received. As per letter dated 10/3/2016 the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the extent of INR 120,000 in his hands. Therefore he submitted that the sum of INR 170,000 found from the locker is fully explained. 6. The learned departmental representative supported the order of the lower authorities and stated that the assessee is changing his stand and did not explain that the source of the money that has been found in the locker belongs to him and what is the source of the above sum. He therefore stated that the amount has rightly been added in the hands of the assessee. 7. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The only issue involved in this appeal is whether the amount of INR 170,000 found from the locker of the assessee are required to be taxed in the hands of the assessee as unexplained money. The assessee has submitted that the above amount has been generated out of his past savings. It is also not in dispute that the assessee was serving with some company for a very long time and his son is settled in United Kingdom. It is also not in dispute that appellant is aged 70 years and staying with his son who meet the household expenditure. The assessee has also submitted his bank statement wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spect to the maximum jewellery not to be seized. She further stated that the entire jewellery stands duly explained. The learned assessing officer considered the reply of the assessee and stated that instruction number 1916 is for the purpose of seizure and not for the purpose of not making an addition. He therefore made the addition of 3849749 as unexplained jewellery in assessment order passed u/s 143 (3) of the act on 14/3/2016. The assessee challenged the same before the learned CIT A who passed an order on 30/1/2017. The learned CIT appeal noted that total 1314.834 g of the Gold jewellery was found and out of that he granted an allowance of 600 g and the balance jewellery was confirmed by considering the standard gold rate at the rate of INR 30800/ per 10 g. Accordingly he confirmed the balance addition of INR 1960439/ and deleted the balance addition. Assessee aggrieved with the order of the learned CIT A has preferred an appeal before us. 11. The learned authorised representative submitted that the total jewellery was found at INR 3 849749 out of which the addition of INR 1 960439 has been upheld by the learned CIT appeal. The learned authorised representative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artmental representative vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that when the assessee does not have evidence of the source of the jewelry owned by the assessee that addition has been correctly made u/s 69A of the income tax act. He further submitted that the instruction number 1916 of the CBDT is only for the purpose of seizure and cannot be applied for the purpose of the taxation under section 69A of the act. He further stated that even otherwise no further deduction can be granted from the instruction number 1916 of the central board of direct taxes if it is applied. He therefore submitted that the addition made by the learned assessing officer and confirmed by the learned CIT A deserves to be confirmed. 13. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. During the course of search jewellery weighing 1314.83 g was found in the possession of the assessee. Out of that it was stated by the assessee that jewelry belonging to Sanjay Jain and his family is 87 g. The assessee submitted that the above jewellery belonging to her brother-in-law Mr Sanjay Jain and his family who kept this jewellery in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the undisclosed jewellery taxed u/s 69 of the income tax act by following the decision of honourable Gujarat High Court in 339 ITR 351. Therefore for the similar direction we partly allow the appeal of the assessee. 17. Accordingly, ITA number 2930/del/2017 filed by the assessee is partly allowed with above direction for statistical purposes. 18. ITA No 2931 del 2015 appeal is filed by Mr Vivek Jain against the order of the Commissioner of income tax appeals 25, New Delhi dated 30/1/2017 wherein the addition of INR 1 03800 made by the learned assessing officer on account of unexplained income in the form of cash found from the residence of the assessee under section 69 of the income tax act 1961 was confirmed. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 2931/Del/2017 for the Assessment Year 2014-15:- 1. The ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of ₹ 1,03,800/- made by the ld Assessing Officer on account of unexplained income in the form of cash found from the residence of the appellant u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 19. The brief facts of the case shows that during the course of search and seizure under section 132 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arch took place in the case of the assessee on 30/09/2013. He further stated that such concession was only given for the purpose of depositing old currency notes which were demonetized and not for holding of the currency. 22. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. Apparently during the course of search assessee was found to be in possession of INR 1 03800 at his residence and could not give proper explanation to the satisfaction of the learned assessing officer and therefore the addition has been made. On careful consideration of the explanation of the assessee that assessee has been withdrawing a sum of INR 395,000 and only deposited part of the sum which should be available for the set off against the above cash found. According to us this argument deserves to be rejected as the father of the assessee has stated that the expenditure for household is met by the assessee that is Mr Vivek Jain. In view of this no credit can be given to the assessee about the difference in the amount withdrawn from the bank and the amount deposited in the bank account. Further with respect to the argument of the learned authorised repres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
