9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment proceedings, the AO noted that jewellery valued at Rs. 39,29,928/- was found from the locker out of which jewellery valued at Rs. 23,46,108/- was seized after giving due consideration to CBDT instruction/circular in relation to seizure of jewellery. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO asked the assessee to explain the source of jewellery seized. It was submitted by the assessee that jewellery found from the locker is nothing but family owned jewellery over the years. However, the AO rejected the contention of the assessee on the ground that the assessee was filing her return of income declaring very meagre income every year and therefore creditworthiness is doubtful. The submission of the assessee that the jewellery belonging to her sister-in-law Ms. Sikha David (unmarried sister of husband), who is residing with the assessee was also rejected by the AO on the ground that at the time of seizure of locker when the statement of husband of the assessee Shail Anand was taken, he has not stated the fact that some jewellery is belonging to Ms. Sikha David. Since, the assessee could not explain the source of jewellery to the satisfaction of the AO, he made addition of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994 and treated jewellery as unexplained investment. It was also contended that the AO ignored the fact that jewellery found belonged to all the members of the family and not solely to the appellant. 5.2.2. On perusal of written submission of the appellant and the assessment order it is clear that the appellant was given full benefit of CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994 at the time of seizure of jewellery. This is evident from Question Nos. 15 &16 of statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act of the appellant on 29.11.2016 during the locker operation which has been quoted also in the written submission. During the course of search on 22.10.2016 at the residential premises of the appellant gold equivalent weight of 160gms was found which was not seized. As per the statement of Sh. Shail Anand, the husband of the appellant, the family consists of the appellant, her husband and son Tarush Anand. As per CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994 the family was entitled to benefit of 700gms. of gold jewellery. Therefore, at the time of locker operation the appellant was further granted benefit of 540gms. gold jewellery and the balance jewellery was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the absence of any credible and reliable documentary evidence. In the light of the above observations. I hold that the appellant has not been able to explain source of seized jewellery amounting to Rs. 23.46.108/- and there is no merit in the contention of the appellant that the AO ignored CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994. Thus, in my considered view, the AO is fully justified in making addition of Rs. 23.46.108/- as unexplained investment u/s 69A r.w.s. I15BBK of the Act. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 23.46.108'- as unexplained investment u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act made by the AO is confirmed. Accordingly. Ground Nos. 1 to 3 of appeal are dismissed." 6. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal:- i. "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is bad both in eyes of law and on facts. ii. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the impugned order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. iii. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts by upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntire family was having only one locker. It was argued that affidavit confirming the jewellery of 468.26gms pertaining to Ms. Shikha David was already filed before the Assessing Officer. It was argued that Ms. Shikha David is unmarried and resides at the residence of her mother, late Shobha David like any other unmarried women in a Hindu family. It was argued that the Aadhar Card and Passport of Ms. Shikha David also bear the same address as that of the assessee. Therefore, questioning the fact that she is not a member of the family is uncalled for. It was argued that the remaining jewellery weighing 552.094gms belongs to the assessee, her husband and minor son. 8.1. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sushila Devi vs CIT in W.P.(C) No.7620/2011 order dated 21.10.2016, it was argued that the Hon'ble High Court has accepted the explanation of the assessee that the gold jewellery acquired through gifts made by relatives and other family members over a long period of time, is in keeping with prevailing customs and habits. 8.2. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chadha vs ITO, in ITA No.274/2011, order d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for. 11. I find some force in the above argument of the learned counsel for the assessee. It is an admitted fact that from the details given by the assessee jewellery weighing 1302.698gms valued at Rs. 39,29,928/- were found from the locker no.489 maintained with Union Bank of India, out of which jewellery valued at Rs. 23,46,108/- were seized after giving due consideration to CBDT instruction/circular in relation to jewellery seizure. I find before the Assessing Officer as well as before the learned CIT(A), the assessee was stating that the jewellery found from the locker was belonging to the assessee Chhabi Anand, her husband Mr. Shail Anand, her minor son Tarush Anand, unmarried sister-in-law Ms. Shikha David and Late mother-in-law Sobha David. The submission of the assessee before the lower authorities that the address of Ms. Shikha David, the unmarried sister-in-law of the assessee is the same as that of the assessee has not been controverted. Merely because the husband of the assessee did not mention the name of Ms. Shikha David in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) in my opinion cannot be a ground to disregard the contention of the assessee that Ms. Shikha David was staying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s list inventory of books of account, documents found and seized; copy of inventory of cash found but not seized; report of valuation of jewellery; copy of reply filed by the assessee before ACIT; copy of reply filed by the assessee before DCIT; copy of submission before CIT(A) alongwith copy of affidavit of Smt. Suneela Soni and details of jewellery of in lockers; copy of affidavit purchased by Sh. Shiv Sunder Soni, son of late Sh. MG Soni alongwith details of jewellery in lockers; copy of judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Radha Kishan Soni vs. CIT reported in 277 ITR 56 and copy of judgment of Hon'bel High Court of Delhi in the case of Ashok Chadha vs. ITO reported in 14 taxmann.com 57 (Delhi.) inventory of other valuables, locker keys , FDR etc.; copy of inventory of cash found but not seized; report of valuation of jewellery. I find that AO has made the addition of Rs. 10,65,312.00 on account of purported unexplained jewelery claimed by the assessee without appreciating the fact that the jewelery found during the course of search and seizure operations was from the locker held by the father in law and husband of the assessee and hence the addition in the h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s "reasonable allowance" and treat the remaining jewellery of Rs. 506.900 as unexplained. She also submitted that another glaring fact ignored by the Assessing Officer as well as other authorities was that as the department had conducted a search of all the financial dealings which were within his knowledge and no paper or document was found to indicate that this jewellery belonged to the appellant and that it was undisclosed income of the assessment year 2006-07. In a search operation, no scope is left with the tax department to make addition on subjective guess work, conjectures and surmises. It was also argued that jewellery is "streedhan" of the assessee's wife, evidenced in the form of declaration which was furnished by mother-in-law of the assessee stating that she had given the jewellery in question to her daughter. She argued that it is a normal custom for a woman to receive jewellery in the form of marriage and other occasions such as birth of a child. The assessee had been married more than 25-30 years and acquisition of the jewellery of 906.900 grams could not be treated as excessive. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand relied upon the reasoning ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
