TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1837X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48 [hereinafter referred as the ld. CIT(A)], Mumbai dated 21.06.2018, which in turn arises from the assessment order dated 28.12.2017 passed under section 143(3) of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. That as on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of 270 Gms. of Gold worth Rs.6,93,630/- made by the Assessing Officer ignoring the allowable wealth which a lady and a man can possess. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of 270 Gms. of Gold worth Rs.6, 93,630/- out of 370 Gms. of gold jewellery belonging to Mrs. Nisha M. Mehta (Appellant's Brother's Son's Wife) by treating only 100 Gms. as customary by not considering that the excess alleged unexplained jewellery found at the time of search has been received at marriage and other festivals as a part of Indian Traditions. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the weight of the gold jewellery belonging to Mrs. Nisha M. Mehta is only 370 Gms. which is below 500 Gms. a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Y.2012-13 to today she is hold 1143.3 gm gold and 27.1 ct diamonds and she is fully returned regularly and paying the wealth tax out of the total gold found and seized (1703 gms) and shown in return of wealth is 1143.3 gms. The difference is 559.7 gm. The explanation of difference is as under: Babulal Mehta: 84.3 gm gold, a man of 60 years in his life cannot saved/purchased or received at the time of marriage etc. Girish B Mehta : 65 gm gold, an aged about 26 years received at the various occasion like birthday and in marriage gift. It should be consider; as per the custom of society. Nisha B Mehta: Gold found and seized is 370.1 gms and diamond 2.48 ct Nisha is wife of his brother son, stay in Bombay as a joint family married 3 year back, get the jewellery as gift from father as well as ill laws. Source is only gift at the time of marriage only. If you accept the Indian culture and consume, every father and family members gives according to the capacity and as per the social security also even the govt made the program and give in the marriage of ladies. It is upto you to decide in the matter. The regarding diamond found and seized is 23.747 but the assessee is showing i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2018 and Vidhu Aggarwal vs. DCIT [93 taxmann.com 275]. The ld. AR also relied upon the CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994. The ld. AR finally submits that the ground of appeal raised in the present appeal is squarely covered in favour of assessee. 7. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. 8. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. In our view, a very narrow dispute before us relates to gold jewellery of 370 gms which was treated by assessing officer as unexplained investment at the hand of the assessee. The ld. AR for the assessee explained before us that disputed jewellery is much below 500 Gms treated by Assessing Officer as unexplained investment is within tolerable limit as per CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2016. We have noted that the Assessing Officer accepted the explanation furnished by assessee with regard to assessee, his wife and other male member of family. However, the Assessing Officer made addition in respect of 270 (370-100 =270) gms of gold jewellery of Nisha Mehta a married female member of assessee s family. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of V.G.P. Ravidas (supra) is concerned, ostensibly it was a case where the assessee was a wealth tax payee and therefore, it was required of him to specifically show the source of jewellery found in excess of what was declared in the respective wealth tax returns. In fact the CBDT circular dated 11.05.1994 (supra) specifically contains para (ii), which prescribes that in the case of wealth tax assessees gold jewellery and ornaments found in excess of the gross weight declared in the wealth tax returns only need to be seized. Shri Ashok Jain Therefore, the facts of the case before the Hon'ble High Court were completely different than the instant case. The instant is a case where the assessee has not been assessed to wealth tax and the gold jewellery found was within the permissible limits contained in the CBDT circular dated 11.05.1994 (supra) and therefore the ratio of the judgement of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court clearly covers the issue in favour of the assessee. We hold so. Therefore, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow appropriate relief and recompute the income on this as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
