9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 578X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Search & Seizure operation was conducted at the residence of assessee on 09.12.2005. In search, jewellery belonging to assessee and other family member was found. The jewellery was inventorised and valued by a registered valuer as per page no-1-7 on annexure to the Panchnama. The particulars of family member to whom jewellery belonging was also noted by the Search party. On the date of search, part of the jewellery as per page no-4-7 of valuation report was released. The remaining jewellery after inventorisation and valuation was kept in a locker in the steel almirah on the first floor of the house and a restrained order was imposed u/s 132(3) of the Act. It is evident in the para 8 of the Panchnama dated 09.12.2005. The restrained jewellery was released on 18.05.2006 by revoking the restrained order and it is also mentioned in the Panchnama prepared on 18.05.2006. The jewellery released on 18.05.2006 included the jewellery belonging to Smt. Savita Bansal also. (a) Smt. Savita Bansal is assessed separately vide PAN No. AEPJB6993J. In her case, jewellery found, was accepted as Stri Dhan and no addition was made by the Assessing Officer as he is the Assessing Officer also. (b) Affi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same jewellary which was found at the time of search on 09.12.2005 from the premises of at B-26, Swasthya Vihar, Delhi- 110092 from Ground Floor and First Floor. The detailed chart about ownership of jewellery and copy of Panchnama's were filed. In the submissions, it was explained that the jewellery released on 18.05.2006 was including jewellery belonging to Smt. Savita Bansal. In the search on 09.12.2005 jewellery amounting to Rs.12,36,164/- was found from Smt. Savita Bansal on Ground Floor and the same was assessed in her hand. (viii) Ld. A.O. has already enquired about the source of the said jewellery from Smt. Savita Bansal in her Assessment Proceedings vide Letter dt. 14.12.2007. IN reply to which a letter dt. 20.12.2007, was filled by Smt. Savita Bansal, explaining the source of acquisition of said jewellery. Satisfied by the reply, the Ld. A.O. did not make any addition in the hands of Smt. Savita Bansal in connection with the said jewellery. Copy of query letter dt. 14.12.2007 and reply dt. 20.12.2007 was enclosed. Accordingly, the jewellery belonging to Smt. Savita Bansal was considered explained and accepted by the Ld. A.O. Now the same jewellery had been once again ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om on First Floor in our presence". Copy of the Panchnama dt. 09-10/12/2005 was submitted. This is a double addition and addition of jewellery belonging to others, in her hand, without any basis. 5. Accordingly, it was submitted that entire addition made by Assessing Officer is liable to be deleted. Ld. CIT(A) considered the order of Assessing Officer and the submissions and gave his following finding in para 6-11:- "6. I have considered the submission of the appellant and the assessment of the A.O carefully. In this case, operation u/s 132 took place on 9th Dec, 2005 in the residential premises at B-26, Swasthya Vihar, Delhi-92. As per Panchnama dated 10/12/2005 jewellery worth 12,36,164/- of Smt. Savita Bansal was found in the ground floor and jewellery worth Rs.17,95,058/- of Smt. Sadhna Rani were found at 1st floor of the building and separate valuation was done accordingly by Approved valuer dated 09/12/05. Jewellery worth Rs. 59,350/- was released on that day to Savita Bansal and rest of the jewelleries were restrained u/s 132(3) and kept in an Almirah in First floor of the house. However, vide revocation order dated 18/05/2006, the entire jewellery were release to Smt. Sad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee vide letter dated 20/12/07. Under the circumstances, this jewellery valuaded at Rs.12,36,164/- should be considered only in the hand of Smt. Savita Bansal, who is an income tax assessee (Pan No. AEPJB6993J). There is no reason or any evidence to conclude that the same should be treated as jewellery belonging to Smt. Sadhna Rani. Smt. Sadhna Rani had also pointed out that these jewellery belonged to Smt. Savita Rani only. Affidavit to this effect were submitted by Smt. Sadhna Rani & Savita bansal. The A.O has not controverted the contents of the affidavit. As per panchnama dated 10/12/05, jewellery valuaded at rs.12,36,164/- was found from Savita Bansal. Section 132(4A) reads as under :- "Where any books of account, other documents, money bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing are or is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search, it may be presumed :- (i) that such books of account, other documents, money bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belong or belongs to such person; (ii) that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true; and (iii) That the signature and every other part of such bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the jewellery has been received by her at the time of marriage in 1981 and later on the occasion of birth of her daughters from parents, parents-in-law and relatives from time to time. The whole of jewellery has been claimed as her Stri Dhan received as gifts. Therefore, these are not acquired out of undisclosed income or other sources. 10. Out of the jewellery belonging to the appellant valuaded at Rs. 17,95,058/-, the A.O had considered 500 gms valuaded at Rs. 4,50,000/- as Stri Dhan of the Hindu married woman. However, during the course of Appellate Proceedings the appellant had argued that the family of the appellant consists of the husband and grown up son & the daughter-in-law, who have also received gold ornaments and other valuables as customary gifts etc. from the relatives on different occasions. The jewellery found in the residence belong to not only the appellant but also to the other family members. During the course of Search & Seizure proceedings no other jewellery has been found. Considering the submission of the appellant, and on the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the customs & traditions of Indian family, I find it fair and reasonab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort was obtained by the department which was annexed to the panchnama. Jewellery amount to Rs. 12,36,164/- was valued in the name of Smt. Savita Bansal. Smt. Savita Bansal is assessed to tax separately. The same AO who is the AO of the assessee also, completed the assessment of Smt. Savita Bansal. A query letter was issued in respect of jewellery of Rs. 12,36,164/- to explain the source. Affidavit was filed and thereafter the assessment was completed without making any addition of the impugned jewellery found. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 12,36,164/- and accordingly we confirm his order on this issue. (a) In respect of addition of Rs.30,21,912/e deleted by Ld. CIT(A), it is seen that the AO made an addition of Rs. 30,21,912/- which includes jewellery of Rs. 12,36,164/- and Rs. 17,95,058/- belonging to assessee. Ld. CIT(A) deleted this addition also by observing that a separate addition of Rs.17,95,058/- has also made by the AO in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, it was a double addition to this extent and accordingly an addition of Rs.17,95.058/- & balance addition of Rs. 12,36,164/- belonging to Smt. Savita Bansal was deleted as stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed at Rs.17,95,058/-. Therefore, in our considered view, entire jewellery should have been treated acquired by the family on account of marriage and on account of gift received at various occasions i.e on occasion of birth of the children and other ceremonies upto the period of search i.e December 2005. This view of our findings support by the decision in the case of Ashok Chadda of Hon'ble Delhi High Court relied upon by Ld. AR which was decided in ITA No. 274/2011 vide order dated 05.07.2011. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court is held as under :- "After considering the aforesaid submissions we are of the view that addition made is totally arbitrary and is not founded on any cogent basis or evidence. We have to keep in mind that the assessee was married for more than 25-30 years. The jewellery in question is not very substantial. The learned counsel for the appellant/assessee is correct in her submission that it is a normal custom for woman to receive jewellery in the form of "stree dhan" or on other occasions such as birth of a child etc. Collecting jewellery of 906.900 grams by a woman in a married life of 25-30 years is not abnormal. Furthermore, there was no valid and/or proper yar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hus, although the circular had been issued for the purpose of non-seizure of jewellery during the course of search, the basis for the same recognizes customs prevailing in the Hindu society. In the circumstances, unless the Revenue shows anything to the contrary, it can safely be presumed that the source to the extent of the jewellery stated in the circular stands explained. Thus, the approach adopted by the Tribunal in considering the extent of jewellery specified under the said circular to be a reasonable quantity, cannot be faulted with. In the circumstances, it is not possible to state that the Tribunal has committed any legal error so as to give rise to a question of law." 12. The ratio of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court also squarely applies on the facts of the present case. In view of the above facts and circumstances and in view of the reasoning given by Ld. CIT(A) whereas he has deleted the addition. We delete the entire addition made by AO on account of jewellery acquired by the assessee. The grounds of the department's fails and the grounds of the assessee is allowed. 13. There is one more ground in appeal of the assessee that it is that there was no specific authoriza ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
