TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the finding of the AO, who in unequivocal terms states that the source of acquisition/purchase of jewellery worth Rs. 3,92,151/- was without any documentary evidence. CIT(A) failed to take note of the fact that assessee is having high social status and duly declared jewellery of more than 6.27 crores. Looking to the peculiarity of facts of the present case where there is no finding by AO that addition was made on account of the fact that items do not partake the character of jewellery, we direct the AO to delete the impugned addition. Grounds of appeal are allowed. - Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Accountant Member And Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Anup Mehta, CA For the Department : Shri Amir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of income u/s 139 of the Act on 15.10.2019, thereby declaring total income of INR 1,97,57,870/-, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. A notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued. In response thereof the learned AR of the assessee attended the proceedings. While framing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act the AO made addition of Rs. 3,92,151/- on account of unexplained investment in jewellery. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred appeal before learned CIT(A), who sustained the addition. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the authorities below failed to give benefit of CBDT Instruction No. 1916. He contended that as per the Revenue itself the total je ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven the benefit of instruction no.1916 of the CBDT. The appellant argued that the addition made was in respect of one gold coin and 17 gold ginnies. Further, weight of ginnies and gold coin added is only 138.90 gms. It was further stated that the appellant was able to reconcile jewellery worth Rs. 6.27 Crores, Therefore, the Assessing Officer should have allowed the remaining jewellery after invoking instruction no. 1916 of the CBDT. 9. The reply of the appellant is examined. As per instruction no. 1916, there is exemption to some extent from seizure in respect of jewellery found. The instruction does not lay down that unexplained jewellery to the extent of 500 gms in the case of a married lady is automatically explained or there is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
