9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 1526 - AT - Income TaxAddition of excess gold jewellery u/s 69A - Search and Seizure operation U/s. 132 - value of gold jewellery weighing 284.600 grams which is found in excess after considering the eligible exemption as per the CBDT Instruction No. 1916, dated 11/05/1994 - HELD THAT - Gold jewellery belonging to family members was seized to the extent of 1628.025 grams and there is no dispute on the fact that as per the CBDT Instruction No. 1916, dated 11/5/1994 that in a case of a person who is not assessed to wealth tax, gold jewellery and ornaments to the extent of 500 grams per a married lady, 250 grams per an unmarried lady and 100 grams per male member of the family should not be seized. AO has erred in disallowing the excess gold of 284.600 grams belonging to the mother of the assessee who is staying with the assessee being the only daughter, and considered as belonging to the family members of the assessee. In these peculiar circumstances, we find merit in the argument of the Ld. AR and we are of the considered view that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) needs to be quashed and allow the appeal of the assessee.
Issues:
Assessment of excess gold jewellery under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-12, Hyderabad, for the AY 2018-19. The assessee derived income from business and remuneration from a partnership firm. A Search and Seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was conducted in the group cases of a particular firm, including the residence of a specific individual related to the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) assessed the income of the assessee, including an amount representing the value of excess gold jewellery found during the operation. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as no one attended the hearing. The assessee then appealed to the Appellate Tribunal. The assessee raised various grounds of appeal challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Authorized Representative argued that the excess gold jewellery belonged to family members as detailed in the assessment order. The Ld. AR contended that the AO erred in not considering the relationship of the gold jewellery with the mother of the assessee, who was staying with her daughter, the only daughter. The Ld. DR supported the AO's order but could not dispute the taxing of excess jewellery belonging to the mother of the assessee. After considering the contentions and available material, the Tribunal found that the excess gold jewellery belonged to family members and that the AO erred in disallowing the excess gold belonging to the mother of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Instruction specified limits for gold jewellery not to be seized based on the individual's status. Given the circumstances and relationship of the mother with the assessee, the Tribunal concluded in favor of the assessee, quashing the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and allowing the appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, pronouncing the judgment on the 27th of July, 2022.
|
