TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1078X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee from the valuation report of the Govt. Approved Valuer. It was after taking into account the said reports, he has given part relief. Thus, the jewellery which was found on the possession of his wife and mother were old jewelleries and ancestral inheritance and also gifted 2-3 decades ago. CBDT Instruction no. 1916 which has been subject matter of interpretation by various courts in the case of Smt. Pati Devi [ 1999 (2) TMI 43 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] , CIT vs. Ghanshyam Das Johri [ 2013 (10) TMI 1187 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and Ratanlal vs. Yaparilal Jain [ 2010 (7) TMI 769 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and others and several other decisions of the Coordinate Bench, the courts have held that CBDT instruction should be taken as guiding factor for presuming assessee to the extent of limit prescribed for the family members should be treated as explained looking to the Indian customs and traditions where jewelleries were given to the ladies at the time of marriage and other occasions. Thus, when the various Hon ble High Courts have held this proposition in favour of the assessee, we find that the ratio laid down has more pursusive value. CBDT circular strongly prescribed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fact that the same may be acquired from undisclosed sources which had escaped taxation. (iii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief on account of jewellery items worth Rs.84,53,902/- by not appreciating the fact that the assessee or his family members have never filed their wealth-tax returns, which could indicate their ownership of such jewellery items. (iv) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief on account of cash found at the assessee's residential premises during the search action to the extent of Rs.4,93,824/- by not appreciating the fact that there was no proof that the said cash-in-hand as on 31.03.2016 was not spent by the assessee during the period from 01.04.2016 till 13.07.2016 or that the same was not parked back in any manner. The appellant prays that the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) on the above grounds be set aside and that the order of DC CC 6(4) be restored. The appellate craves, leaves to amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground, which may be necessary. 2. The facts in br ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e LOCKER, as per the Valuation report, the total Gold jewellery of 1446.000 grns valued at Rs.41,17,711/- and Diamond jewellery of 325.900 gms (53.60 cts) valued at Rs.17,84,054/-were found. Q,27 Please state that who is the owner of the jewellery items found at your residence? Also state, whether you and your family members file Wealth Tax Return? What is the source of the jewellery items found at your residence? Sir, the jewellery mentioned above belongs to my wife and my mother. My mother had kept few of her jewellery items with me as she considered them to be more safe here. If you will see it closely, it is ail my ancestral jewellery. Most of it was gifted to us during our marriage by my parents and grandparents and my wife's parents and grandparents. We never had an idea that wealth tax is also to be filed as all this jewellery came to us as a part of gift It is basically a 'Stridhan' received during my marriage and some items are received as a gift during various family functions (Children's birth, Mundan ceremony etc), I need some time to submit the source and other related documents. So kindly give me 7 days time to furnish the detailed reconc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red but the same is found to be not acceptable as the assessee's own statement and reply filed during the assessment proceeding are contradictory in so far as the assessee, during the search action, had stated that the sources of this cash is basically withdraw from the company and the same is taken from the company which was meant to be adjusted against his coming month's salary, on the other hand, during the assessment proceedings the assessee submitted that the cash in hand amounting to Rs. 12,99,564/- on year ended 31 March, 2016 and the difference refers to the amount that has been spent out for business as well as personal use between the date of Balance Sheet and the date of search for household expenses but could not explain the mount which was spent for business and for household. 4.5 In view of the above discussion, it is hereby held that the assessee has failed to explain the sources of cash amounting to Rs.5,04,000/- found during the search action. Therefore, the sum of Rs.5.04.000/- is undisclosed sources of income and the same remain unexplained within the meaning of Section 69A of the Act and the same are taxed accordingly. 6. Ld. CIT(A) in so far ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act,. This ground of appeal is Partly Allowed, 8. Regarding addition of Rs. 5,04,000/- on account of alleged unexplained cash, Ld. CIT(A) has given part relief after verifying the withdrawal of regular bank account and balance sheet, which are as under:- Now, the appellant has submitted that the cash of Rs. 5,04,000/- was from the withdrawal made from his regular bank account and also the cash belonging to family members which was accumulated over the period of time. The appellant has submitted a copy of bank account in his name bearing Account No. 11050124088 held with Nariman Point Branch, HDFC Bank. The appellant has submitted a summary of withdrawal from the said bank account from 02.04.2015 to 14.05.2016. The total of withdrawal comes to Rs.11,02,000/-. 6.4 The bank account of the appellant with HDFC Bank has been examined and it is observed that the appellant had received salary from the company in which he is Director and the same was regularly credited in this bank account. Further there are some amounts transferred from another bank account. The withdrawal of Rs.11,02,000/- has also been verified with the bank account. The submissions of the appellant cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a 3.5 of the assessment order. Thus, there is no question of remanding the matter to verify the valuation report to the AO. Regarding the benefit of CBDT circular No. 1916 (supra), he said that there are plethoras of judgments of jewellery taken into account the quantity of jewellery to the family members. Therefore, to that extent, it can be safely presumed that jewelleries stated in the circular stands explained and he relied on the following judgments listed as below:- 2 15.2.1999 240 ITR 727 (Kar) Smt. Pati Devi vs. ITO 3 25.10.2013 41 taxmann.com 295 (All) CIT vs. Ghanshyam Das Johri 4 19.7.2010 339 ITR 351(Guj) CIT vs. Ratanlal vs. Yaparilal Jain 5 31.1.2014 463/Mum/2012DCIT vs. Sh. Haroon Mohd. Unni. In ITA No. 6 7.4.2014 366 ITR 325 (Raj) CIT vs. Satya Narain Patni 7 4.5.2018 170 ITD 580 (Del-Trib.) Vibhu Aggarwal vs. DCIT 6 9. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aluation reports were for the year 1990, 2002 and 2009. The AO nowhere mentioned about the valuation report which was filed before him and duly noted by Ld. CIT (A) who has tallied the description of the jewelleries as given in the valuation report filed by the assessee from the valuation report of the Govt. Approved Valuer. It was after taking into account the said reports, he has given part relief. Thus, the jewellery which was found on the possession of his wife and mother were old jewelleries and ancestral inheritance and also gifted 2-3 decades ago. Apart from that, even if we go by the CBDT Instruction no. 1916 which has been subject matter of interpretation by various courts in the case of Smt. Pati Devi Vs. ITO (240) ITR 727 (Kar), CIT vs. Ghanshyam Das Johri (41 taxmann.com 295) (All) and CIT vs. Ratanlal vs. Yaparilal Jain 339 ITR 351 (Guj) and others and several other decisions of the Coordinate Bench, the courts have held that CBDT instruction should be taken as guiding factor for presuming assessee to the extent of limit prescribed for the family members should be treated as explained looking to the Indian customs and traditions where jewelleries were given to the ladi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
