9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... him, rest of the substantial questions of law, needs no consideration of this court. 2. Brief facts which have been culled out on perusal of the impugned orders, are that a search and seizure operation was carried out at the business and residential premises of the assessee on 30.6.2004 where certain incriminating books of accounts and documents were seized. During the course of search operation, cash amounting to RS.1,50,600/- was found besides Gold jewellery weighing 2202.464 gms. valued at Rs.10,53,520/- and Silver items valued at Rs.93,678/-. Looking to the status of the assessee and the statement given during the course of search operation by various family members and considering the fact that there are four married ladies in the house including the wife of the assessee, no jewellery was seized by the authorised officer, however, the jewellery to the extent of 1600 gm was treated as reasonable by the Assessing Officer which had been received by them at the time of their marriage. The balance jewellery weighing 602.464 gm was treated as unexplained in absence of any satisfactory explanation from the assessee and the value of the same which was determined at Rs.2,88,176/-, was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat Assessing Officer is debarred from questioning even the items found. The circular emphasized only that jewellery will not be seized, however, the Assessing Officer was duty bound to seek explanation of owning and possessing of such jewellery. He has also contended that when majority of the jewellery in accordance with the status of the respondent-assessee had been accepted, then only to the extent the assessee was unable to prove by acceptable evidence of the balance, the said addition was made and which is proper and contended that the Tribunal is unjustified and that substantial question of law arise for consideration. 6. We have considered the arguments raised on behalf of the counsel for the revenue, and have gone through the impugned orders so also the circular of CBDT. It is necessary to quote the instruction no.1916 dated 11.5.1994 issued by the Central Board Direct Tax, which reads ad-infra: "Instances of seizure of jewellery of small quantity in course of operations under Section 132 have come to the notice of the Board. The question of a common approach to situations where search parties come across items of jewellery, has been examined by the Board and following gu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime of birth of children. Chandraprakash Patni (eldest son):- In reply to Q.No.12 regarding jewelry lying with him at that time, he stated that around 10 tola of jewelry is lying with him belonging to his wife. Pushpendra Patni:- In reply to Q.No.16 he stated that he has one gold chain, braclet and two rings. In reply to Q.No.17 he stated that he is not aware of the jewelry owned by his wife but the jewelry she possess has been received at the time of marriage in 2000 and he has not purchased any jewelry thereafter. Smt.Aparna Jain w/o Chandraprakash Patni:- In reply to Q.No.6 she stated that she possess one chain, four churi, two bangles, two pair tops, ladies braclet, gents braclet, 3-4 rings and mangalsutra. She further stated that two sets received from her parents and one set received from in-laws are lying with her mother-in-law Smt.Anila Patni." 8. Thus, from the perusal of above chart as well as statements, it is abundantly clear that jewellery which has been found in possession of the family members is in accordance with customs and practice prevalent in the community and in accordance with status of the family. 9. On perusal of the order of CIT (Appeals) as also the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to which the family belongs and other circumstances of the case, decide to exclude a larger quantity of jewellery and ornaments from seizure. 12. It is true that the circular of the CBDT, referred to supra dt. 11/05/1994 only refers to the jewellery 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 and it does not speak about the questioning of the said jewellery from the person who has been found with possession of the said jewellery. However, the Board, looking to the Indian customs and traditions, has fairly expressed that jewellery to the said extent will not be seized and once the Board is also of the express opinion that the said jewellery cannot be seized, it should normally mean that any jewellery, found in possesion of a married lady to the extent of 500 gms, 250 gms per unmarried lady and 100 gms per male member of the family will also not be questioned about its source and acquisation. We can take notice of the fact that at the time of wedding, the daughter/daughter-in-law receives gold ornaments jewellery and other goods not only from parental side but in-laws side as well at the time of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tments in firms/shares, one house property, commercial assets were exempt and even the limit of other assets was raised to 15 lacs (for the Assessment Year 1993-94 to 2009-10) and thereafter, by and large, even the assessees, who were furnishing returns prior to 01/04/1992, in view of the drastic amendment made under the Wealth Tax Act, chose not to file wealth tax return as there was no liability for furnishing wealth tax returns. That does not mean that whatever assets were there in their possession, not disclosed under the Wealth Tax Act, remained undisclosed. May be, later on, on account of increase in the gold/silver prices, value of gems/ stones, value of jewellery may have exceeded but that does not mean that if a person has not filed wealth tax return, then jewellery even to the said extent of 500 gms prescribed by the aforesaid circular, became undisclosed. Admittedly, it is not the case of the revenue that the jewellery, so found, which has been prescribed hereinabove, was not admitted by the family members at the time of search. All the ladies in the family admitted that the jewellery found were all their own and some of the jewellery was lying in custody and control of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
