TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ewellery limits mentioned in the Circular. There was no point in inserting the provision at clause (iii) which grants discretionary power to the Income Tax Authorities to decide as to what can be reasonable quantity of jewellery held by an assessee in view of community practices and social status. As we are of the considered view that the AO had ignored the factual position as well as failed to verify the fact that the assessee is living with his parents and belonged to a Rajput Family where the fact of having jewellery as Streedhan by the assessee s mother and wife cannot be ignored. Thus after considering the overall factual position in this case and keeping in view of high status, family tradition, deduction on account of purity and the deduction towards Streedhan, the excess jewellery found were nominal. In this view of the matter, the addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) deserves to be deleted and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. - ITA No. 49/JP/2022 - - - Dated:- 27-7-2022 - SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN , JM And SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI , AM Assessee by : Shri Manish Agarwal , CA Revenue by : Shri Sanajy Dhariwal , CIT ORDER PER: SAND ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... However, the addition of Rs.24,03,035/- was made on account of jewellery found during the course of search by treating the same as unexplained investment. The ld. CIT(A) while partly allowing the appeal of the assessee restricted the addition to Rs.17,55,262/-. The relevant extract of the finding of the ld. CIT(A) restricting the addition to the tune of Rs.17,55,262/ at para 7.2 (viii) is reproduced as under:- (viii) Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the addition of Rs.6,47,773/- on account of valuable stones is treated as explained. However, the addition to the extent of Rs.17,55,262/- (Rs.15,52,634/- plus Rs.2,02,628/-) on account of gold jewellery and silver jewellery treated as unexplained is sustained instead of addition of Rs.24,13,,035/- made by the AO u/s 69 of the Act. The appellant gets a relief of Rs.6,47,773/-. Accordingly, the Ground No. 4 stands partly allowed. As per factual position as is emanating from the record is that during the course of search total jewellery comprising of gold jewellery weighing 1921.800 gms valued at Rs.47,97,013/- (studded with precious and semi precious stones valuing Rs.6,47,773/- and silver jewellery valued at Rs.2,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,000.00 02-02-2015 2,00,000.00 09-02-2015 3,00,000.00 02-12-2015 1,00,000.00 09-12-2015 2,00,000.00 Total 17,95,000.00 I have already submitted my IDBI Bank Statement 3.4. I would like to bring to your kind notice Instruction No. 1916, dated 11.05.1994 issued by the CBDT with regard to seizure of jewellery in course of operations under section 132, which laid down that in the case of a person not assessed to wealth tax, gold jewellery and ornaments to the extent of 500 gms per married lady. 250 gms per unmarried lady and 100 gms per male member of the family need not be seized. It was also laid down that the authorized officer may, having regard to the status of the family, and the custom and practices of the community to which the family belongs and other circumstances of the case, decide to exclude a larger quantity of jewellery and ornaments from seizure. 3.5 Considering the status of the family and cash drawings made by me for jew ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the customs and practices of the community to which the family belongs and other circumstances of the case, decide to exclude a larger quantity of jewellery and ornaments from seizure. This should be reported to the Director of Income tax/Commissioner authorizing the search all the time of furnishing the search report 2.5 In our view the intention of law is to stick to the jewellery limits mentioned in the Circular. There was no point in inserting the provision at clause (iii) which grants discretionary power to the Income Tax Authorities to decide as to what can be reasonable quantity of jewellery held by an assessee in view of community practices and social status. To this effect, we draw strength from the decisions of Hon ble High Court as well as ITAT Benches which are mentioned as under:- (i) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chaddha vs Income Tax Officer in ITA No. 274/2011 has treated the source of jewellery in excess of quantity provided in CBDT instruction by observing as under: (APB 20-21) 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand relied upon the reasoning given by the authorities below. After considering the aforesaid su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in gold jewellery weighing 242 gms but confirmed the addition for silver articles weighing 1812 gms. The above referred instructions refers only to jewellery and ornaments and nowhere restrict it to gold jewellery. One cannot ignore the fact that in the Indian families there is a culture of giving silver ornaments and utensils on auspicious and marriage occasions, Restricting the limit of 500 gm/250 gm/100 gm only to the gold jewellery ornaments will not serve the true purpose of the CBDT instructions and it has to be applied hamnoninerly in the light of the Indian culture and traditions 12. We therefore in the given facts and circumstances of the case are of the considered view that the impugned silver jewellery weighing 1812 gms valuing at Rs.75.278/-should not have been added to the income of the assessee and the benefit of the CBDT Circular No. 1916 dated 11.5.1994 should also be spread so as to cover the silver articles weighing 1812 gms. We therefore set aside the orders of both the lower authorities and delete the addition of Rs.75,278/- for the alleged unaccounted investment in silver articles and allow the grounds raised by the assessee. (iv) ITAT Delhi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
