9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... age anniversaries etc - The quantum and the worth of the gifts also depend upon the social as well as financial status not only of the donor but of the donee also - It cannot be said to be a case of unexplained jewellery - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 160/M/11 - - - Dated:- 20-12-2013 - Shri D. Karunakara Rao And Shri Sanjay Garg,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Madhur Agrawal, A. R. For the Respondent : Shri Sanjeev Jain, D. R. ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) dated 05.11.10 relevant to assessment year 2008-09. The assessee has taken the following ground of appeal: "Ground No.1: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] grossly erred in confirming the action of the learned Assessing Officer (AO) of treating Jewellery worth Rs.35,21,049/- as unexplained. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete all or any of the above grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing." 2. The brief facts of the case are that during the search seizure operation, jewellery amounting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in fact was the old jewellery of the family purchased from time to time and some of it also received as gifts from relatives and friends on certain occasions from time to time for the past so many years. After the search and seizure operation, the necessary details like bills and evidences of purchase of jewellery were given to the AO. A valuation report for the value of the jewellery as on 19.1.95 and the evidence regarding payments for the purchase of jewellery through banking channel were also provided to the AO. Even every year while filing Income Tax Returns, statement of wealth stating the jewellery report and the purchases thereof was also filed. Since the total value of the jewellery did not cross the limit prescribed for filing the Wealth Tax Return, hence the Wealth Tax Return was not filed up to the assessment year 2007-08. There has been a sharp increase in the price of the gold after the year 2007. The ld. A.R. has brought our attention to the bank account statement for the financial year 1996-97 placed at page 15 of the paper book to show that the payments for the purchase of jewellery were made by cheque/banking channel. He has also drawn our attention to the jewelle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on flimsy grounds should not be approved by the Tribunal. Further, referring to the bills mentioned above, Ld Counsel stated that the assessee has discharged his onus with regard to the evidence of the purchases and the payments were made through the banking channels and the Revenue has no reason to reject the same on the ground of non-appearance of the seller. Assessee cannot be expected of doing the impossible that the Revenue has all the powers to summon the officers concerned. Referring to the gifts mentioned above, the assessee relied on the spirit of the Circular issued by the CBDT. Thus, it is the case of the assessee that the jewellery reports dated 20.1.1995 should be considered and the additions be deleted. Further, Ld. Counsel brought our attention to the said Circular of the CBDT which contain guidelines to be followed in the matters of seizure of gold and jewellery during the course of search action. From the said circular, it is apparent that in case of a person not assessed to wealth-tax, gold jewellery and ornaments to the extent of 500 gms. per married lady, 250 gms. per unmarried lady and 100 gms. per male member of the family need not be seized. He has further br ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee itself were sufficient in the absence of any contrary evidence to show any suspicion about the genuinity of the said documents. Even if the concerned parties/sellers did not appear before the AO for confirmation of the bills, it was open to the AO to exercise his powers to call for the records and appearance of the concerned witnesses. The assessee even before the CIT(A) had submitted the confirmations regarding the purchase of the jewellery but the same was not taken into consideration by the CIT(A) on the technical ground that the said evidence was in the shape of additional evidence and the same could not be admitted as a matter of right under rule 46 of the Income Tax Rules and that the appellate authorities have been vested with the discretion to admit or reject an application for production of evidence. 6. It may be observed that though the discretion is vested with the appellate authorities to admit or reject the additional evidences but the discretion in that regard is to be exercised fairly and justifiably so as to serve the interest of justice. The confirmations which were sought to be submitted by the assessee were in the nature of corroborating evidence to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
