TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 968X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld by each of the family members was below the limits specified in the said circular. Bills of purchase of jewellery were found instead of jewellery itself and assessee has explained that the jewellery is purchased for the friends and relatives of the assessee when the bills are found but the jewellery is not available with the assesseeduring the course of search the addition is also required to be made u/s 69 of the act. Therefore we do not find any difference in the above those situations so far as the overall jewellery found during the course of search as well as the bills of such jewellery do not exceed the limits specified in the above instructions. Respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate bench for AY 2010-11 and 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act ). At the time of search on 26/04/2012, the search party found invoices of jewellery worth ₹ 10,83,958/- pertaining to period covering from Financial Year 2006-07 to 2010-11 i.e. AY 2007-08 to 2011- 12. On the basis of jewellery invoices so found, the assessing officer issued show cause notice to the assessee in response to which the assessee submitted that the jewellery invoices were in respect of jewellery purchased for relatives and friends and no adverse inference was warranted in assessee s case. The assessing officer, while rejecting the assessee s submission, made addition of ₹ 2,07,218/- on the ground of unexplained investment in jewellery in AY 2007-08 i.e. year under consideration. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the facts and documents available on the record. We find that identical issue came up for consideration before the Coordinate bench in appeal relating to AY 2010-11 in ITA No. 4881 and the same was decided vide order dated 06/02/2019 as under: 7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. Fact shows that during the course of search conducted at the residence of the assessee on 26/4/2012 certain documents were found which were the invoices of the purchase of gold and diamond jewellery worth INR 1083958 for period from financial year 2006 07 to financial year 2010 11. The assessee was asked the question about the source ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No. 1916, dated May 11, 1994, lays down guidelines for seizure of jewellery and ornaments in the course of search, the same takes into account the quantity of jewellery which would generally be held by the family members of an assessee belonging to an ordinary Hindu household. The approach adopted by the Tribunal in following the said circular and giving benefit to the assessee, even for explaining the source in respect of the jewellery being held by the family is in consonance with the general practice in the Hindu families whereby jewellery is gifted by the relatives and friends at the time of social functions, viz., marriages, birthdays, marriage anniversary and other festivals. These gifts are cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ewellery do not exceed the limits specified in the above instructions. In view of this facts, and respectfully following the decision of the honourable Gujarat High Court, we set aside this issue back to the file of the learned AO, with a direction to the assessee to identify the total grams of the jewelry contained in the purchase bills as well as the actual jewellery found along with the details of the family members staying with the assessee, thereafter the AO may examine the same and grant benefit of instruction number 1994 dated 11/05/1994 to the assessee. In view of this the issue on account of addition of jewelry of INR 1 25240/ is set aside to the file of the assessing officer with above direction. Gr. No 1 is decided accordingly. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the authorities below erred in holding- 1. That the claim of the appellant the addition of ₹ 4,78,000.00 on account of allegedly unexplained investment in Jewellery. It is prayed that the above actions being misconceived, arbitrary and unlawful must be quashed. 7.1 As the issue involved in this appeal is identical to that decided by us in ITA No. 2801/Del/16, therefore, by parity of reasoning, we hereby order the deletion of addition of ₹ 4,78,000/- made on account of unexplained investment in jewellery. 7.2 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 8.0 In the final result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
