9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: "1. For that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of cash of Rs.2,65,208/- out of Rs.3,88,600/- found during the course of search as unexplained money u/s 69A when the said cash was part of the families regular cash savings and balance kept in the locker. 2. For that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of the value of jewellery amounting to Rs.35,65,535/- out of Rs 36,41,318/- seized during the course of search as unexplained u/s 69A when the said jewellery belonged to the assessee and his family members on record of the department covered by the VDIS 1997, the source of which were duly explained to the A.O and section 69A was not applicable. 3. For that e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... family members as per balance sheet was of Rs.86,408/- only. He, therefore, held that the cash amount to that extent stood explained. He added the remaining amount as unexplained income of the assessee. During the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), the assessee contended that part of the cash balance was out of petty savings of the ladies from drawings made. Further, the Assessing Officer has referred to cash balances as on 31.03.2018 instead of 31.03.2019, as the search was conducted on 28.01.2019. The assessee also furnished the balance sheets of all the persons mentioned above as on 31.03.2019. The ld. CIT(A) considering the above submissions of the assessee observed that it would be fair to the assessee cash balance as on 31.03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and gone through the records. It is to be noted that the amount found during the search action was a small amount which the assessee has claimed that the same has been saved out of past savings during long time by him and his wife. Though the aforesaid amount has not been reflected as cash in hand in the balance sheet of the assessee, however, considering the smallness of the amount and that too was found from the locker of the assessee which was placed along with jewellery of the family and that the amount was out of past savings of the assessee family and hence, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the addition of the aforesaid amount was not warranted in this case. The same is accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther noted that 16 items were found in the locker but only 12 items were seized, as these did not tally with the valuation report made at the time of VDIS declaration. He further noted that the assessee had claimed that some of the old items were remade as per latest design, but he failed to submit any proof in this regard. He further noted that only one locker of the assessee was seized, whereas his residential and other premises were not covered and it might be possible that some jewellery might be lying at the residential and other premises of the assessee. He further noted that as per the balance sheet of the assessee and his family members, the total disclosed investment in gold and jewellery was at Rs.9,06,149/-. He further noted tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. It is not the case of the Department that any gold/jewellery was found over and above the valuation as disclosed in the valuation dated 14.10.1997 and 31.03.2006. Moreover, as per CBDT Instruction No.1916 dated 12.05.1994, it has been stated that in a case of person not assessed to wealth tax, gold jewellery and ornaments 500 gms. per married lady 250 gms per unmarried lady and 200 gms. per male member of the family, need not be seized. It has been further provide that the authorized officer may having regard to the status of the family and 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. Considering the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , cannot be faulted with. In the circumstances, it is not possible to state that the Tribunal has committed any legal error so as to give rise to a question of law." Considering the above stated proposition of law, in this case, as submitted by the counsel of the assessee, if the entire jewellery found in the locker is considered, still the same is less by 700 gms which a normal middle-class family was supposed to possess out of the past savings, gifts etc. Therefore, in the light of the above observation of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, the aforesaid jewellery found from the locker of the assessee being less than the minimum quantity as instructed by the CBDT which a normal family under normal circumstances is supposed to possess, we d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
