TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the ay under consideration is ay: 2010-11 viz. the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search took place. The assessment for year under consideration was framed u/s 143(3), and the year under consideration is the year when the search took place , and the mandate under the instant case is to assess the total income. Thus, we decide this issue against the assessee. Unexplained jewellery - Circular refers to the jewellery which should not be seized during search operations and not with the assessments to be framed. One of the relevant factor for identifying the Stridhan of a women is her and her family (both parents and in-law) social and financial status/background, which cannot be ignored keeping in view the prevalent practices as per Hindu customs. It is also observed that no elaborate reasons have been given by authorities below rejecting the aforesaid contentions raised by the assessee. The matter need to be restored back to the file of the AO for fresh determination and the AO is directed to pass reasoned and speaking orders. We set aside the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh deter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sence of a valid action u/s. 132 of the income tax Act as well as the mandatory requirements were not complied for framing a legal and valid assessment. 3. That in any view of the matter a part sum of ₹ 6,58,969.00 out of addition of ₹ 14,74,642.00 made by the assessing officer by alleging investment in jewellery, as maintained by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) as per Para 6(iv) of his order is highly unjustified and incorrect in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence the addition deserves to be deleted. 4. That in any view of the matter for making and maintaining addition on account of jewellery both the lower authority ignored the facts, case laws and board circular VDIS disclosure by the assessee etc. as well as the fact that the jewelleries were acquired by the assessee long ago by the appellant at the time of her marriage on their subsequent occasions from both side families and relatives as per Hindu Custom and tradition and the jewelleries are her Stridhan hence the addition as made without any search material is liable to be deleted. 5. That in any view of the matter the observations and findings of the two lower authorities for makin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 500 gms of jewellery as Stridhan of the assessee , which she might have been given on different occasions by her family members and relatives. Thus, the AO treated jewellery weighing 1225.040 gms as purchased out of income from undisclosed sources. The AO also observed that during search and seizure operations, the registered valuer has valued purity of the jewelleries of the assessee between 18/20 to 20/22 with rate of gold at ₹ 16,050/- per 10 gms. Thus, the AO took purity value at lower side of 18/20 the value of jewellery on the date of search of locker i.e. 23.09.2009, value of jewellery amounting to ₹ 14,74,642/- was brought to tax by the AO, vide assessment order dated 20.12.2011 passed u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act. 4. Aggrieved by an assessment framed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act , vide assessment order dated 20.12.2011 , the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A) which was partly allowed by ld. CIT(A), wherein ld. CIT(A) further allowed relief to the assessee of the jewellery declared by assessee under VDIS weighing 677.610 gms, while rest of the jewellery found from locker which was owned by assessee weighing 547.43 gms were brought to tax b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deration is ay: 2010-11 viz. the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search took place. The assessment for year under consideration was framed u/s 143(3), and the year under consideration is the year when the search took place , and the mandate under the instant case is to assess the total income. Thus, we decide this issue against the assessee. 6. On merits of the issue, we have heard both the rival parties in details and perused the material on record. We are of the considered view that the assessee has made elaborate arguments before the authorities below , as to her social status and that she belongs to a reputed and big business family of Allahabad , having interests in large businesses. She has also claimed that even her parents were having wide business interests at the time of her marriage and she was bestowed large jewellery as Stridhan by her parents and in-laws at the time of her marriage. She has claimed to have filed even photographs of her marriage to evidence that she was wearing large jewellery at the time of her marriage. She has also claimed to have filed confirmatory letter from her mother explaining that large jewellery were given to her ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
