TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... residence has already been considered in the hands of his father. Though assessee had declared about 500 gms of jewellery in wealth tax return of HUF, no credit for the same is has been granted. Further, against the total assessed quantity of 841.10 gms, assessee is entitled for credit of 950 gms as per Board s Circular [500 gm for assessee wife, his daughter 250 gm and assessee s son 100 gms and 100 gms for assessee]. As against the eligible 950 gms the total found quantity is 841.10 gms therefore, no addition is required to be made in the hands of the assessee considering the CBDT guideline and therefore, we direct the to delete the addition of Rs. 3,86,552/-. Based on this observation the ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. - Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Judicial Member And Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Sh. Sakar Sharma, CA For the Respondent : Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain, CIT-DR ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal filed by assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Udaipur 02 dated 18/09/2023 [here in after CIT(A) ] for assessment year 2017-18 which in turn arise from the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y weighting 141.10 gms valued at Rs. 3,86,552/- was found and seized as per annexure JS-1 appearing at Page 12 of PB. Statement u/s 132(4) of the assessee was also recorded at the time of opening of bank locker where in assessee admitted total jewellery weighing 941.10 gms [800 gms as claimed to be taken out from the bank locker and 141.10 gms found in the bank locker at the time of its operation in the presence of income-tax officials. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, taxed jewellery of Rs. 3,86,552/- weighing 141.10 gms which was physically found and also Rs. 19,17,692/- with reference to about 700 gms of jewellery which assessed claimed as taken out from the bank locker a day prior to the date of search and kept in the kitchen in sugar container u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act vide para 4.5 6 of assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 10-12-2018. 4. Aggrieved from the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below: 4.3 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . G. P. Ravidas V. ACIT (2014) 51 taxman.com 16 but without prejudice to the above reliance placed the AO has considered the fact that the appellant has been allowed the benefit of CBDT instruction by the authorized officer while making the seizure of jewellery. Hence, the argument of the appellant that the AO has not considered CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994 as well as decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT, Alwar vs. Satya Narayan Patni (2014) 106 DTR 426, 269 ITR 466 (Raj.H.C.) is not found to be correct with regard to addition of jewellery of 141 gms amounting to Rs. 3,86,522/- found from locker which was seized during the search proceedings. The addition made to that extent is therefore found to be justified and confirmed. However, AO has not mentioned that the addition made of 700 gms amounting to Rs. 19,17,692/- is in addition to the jewellery found but not seized during the search at the residence of the appellant. Therefore, this addition is not justified as this jewellery is within the limit prescribed by the CBDT instruction and as held by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Satya Narayan Patni (Supra) that such jewellery with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 gms. Therefore, the argument of the appellant is not found to be reliable and rejected. With regard to Jewellery weighing 500 gms available as per wealth tax return of Rajesh Gulabchand Singhavi (HUF) there is no such mention in the statement recorded during the search. In the absence of specific jewellery found and claimed to be belonging to HUF, the claim made later on is not an acceptable claim as this is considered as afterthought only. In the absence of no such claim made during the search proceedings, it can be presumed that this Jewellery was not available at the time of search proceedings. Therefore, such claim made by the appellant is not found to be acceptable. The appellant has also argued that since there was no seizure and no list of jewellery found at the residence was furnished and hence no Incriminating material is found. The argument of the appellant are found to be incorrect and not acceptable. In the statement recorded during the search, the appellant himself accepted existence of jewellery. Further, there must be jewellery on person. Therefore, considering the fact that the jewellery found at home was within the limit prescribed by CBDT the jewellery found in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... search at residence and despite search of residential house why no jewellery could be detected by the search party. Ld. A/R further submitted that parents of wife of assessee were also submitted to search at Beawer on 16-09-2016 and either during search or during assessment no jewellery claimed to be belonging to the wife of the assessee was claimed by them. The ld. AR of the assessee in support thereof place copy of assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 10-12-2018 by the same AO who also framed assessment in the case of assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee referred to para 7 of the assessment order to submit that wife of assessee s very well can claim exemption with reference to CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11-05-1994 only for the assessee, assessee s wife, son, daughter in law and grandson and not with reference to the assessee s wife ornaments. The ld. AR of the assessee further submitted that onus u/s 69A is on the AO to establish that assessee owned jewellery weighing 700 gms in addition to the jewellery weighing 141.10 gms found and seized from the bank locker which he failed to establish. Therefore, only 141.10 gms of jewellery alone ought to have been considered. With ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee s wife Shri Hukmi Chand Jain has not claimed any credit in relation to his daughter [i.e. assessee s wife] in his assessment. Therefore, jewellery if any of assessee s daughter lying at his mother s residence has already been considered in the hands of his father. Though assessee had declared about 500 gms of jewellery in wealth tax return of HUF, no credit for the same is has been granted. Further, against the total assessed quantity of 841.10 gms, assessee is entitled for credit of 950 gms as per Board s Circular [500 gm for assessee wife, his daughter 250 gm and assessee s son 100 gms and 100 gms for assessee]. As against the eligible 950 gms the total found quantity is 841.10 gms therefore, no addition is required to be made in the hands of the assessee considering the CBDT guideline and therefore, we direct the to delete the addition of Rs. 3,86,552/-. Based on this observation the ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 8. Ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is charging of tax at higher rate on the addition so made. Since we have in ground no. 1 deleted the addition the ground no 2 raised by the assessee becomes educative in nature. In the result the appeal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
