9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 1011X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n ground No. 1 of the appeal, assessee has disputed the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming addition to the extent of ₹ 2,88,000/- on account of unexplained jewellery of gold ornaments. 4. The relevant facts are that there was a search and seizure u/s. 132 of the I.T. Act on 13th May, 2003. During the course of search, residential premises and bank lockers, gold and diamond jewellery were inventoried. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee filed by letter dt. 22nd June, 2004 explaining the source for the acquisition and possession of the jewellery in respect of gold ornaments found to the extent of 4,129.520gms. It was stated that some of the jewellery was ancestral and also received from wife and also daughter in la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal before Ld. CIT(A). 6. Ld. CIT(A) after considering submissions of assessee and CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dt. 15th November, 1996 allowed the total credit of 800 gms in respect of jewellery by considering STRIDHAN of 2 daughter-in-laws at 300 gms each and 50 gms each for 4 male members as explained sources for the possession of jewellery. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) out of 1400 gms jewellery excess worked out by AO considered 600 gms as unexplained and treated as undisclosed investment. Thus, Ld. CIT(A) out of addition of ₹ 6,72,000/- made by AO allowed to the extent of ₹ 3,84,000/- (800x480 per gms) and confirmed the balance amount of ₹ 2,88,000/- (600x480 per gms) as unexplained investment. Hence assessee is in furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xplained and need not be considered as unexplained investment. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative relied on order of Ld. CIT(A). 8. We have carefully considered the submissions of Ld. Representatives of the parties and orders of the authorities below as also CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dt. 11.5.1994 and the decisions cited by Ld. AR (supra). On careful considerations of said decisions of co ordinate Benches, we are of the considered view that the intention of CBDT in issuing the said instruction is that jewellery to the extent of 500 gms in the case of a married lady and 100 gms per male member should be treated as explained and need not be considered as unexplained investments. Further, the department has also not brought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elatedly u/s. 139(4) of the Act i.e. after the date of search. 10. We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and considered orders of the authorities below. We observe that there was a search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Act on 13.5.2003. For the assessment year 2002-03, assessee filed return on 12th September, 2003 showing total income of ₹ 21,54,170/-. The AO concluded the assessment for A.Y. 2002-03 determining total income at ₹ 24,96,525/- on protective basis. It is relevant to state that assessee filed return for A.Y. 2002-03 on 12th September, 2003 i.e. after the date of search. In view of above, the AO considering clause (c) of Sec. 158BB, treated the said assessed income as undisclosed income of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the case. 12. The Ld. Departmental Representative has not disputed the above contention of the assessee save and accept relying on order of Ld. CIT(A). 13. We find merits in the contention of Ld. AR and observe that facts in the case of the assessee are identical to the facts in the case of assessee s son Shri Rakesh Uttamchandani (supra) and the issue involved in assessee s case is similar to the issue considered by ITAT in case of assessee s son vide order dt. 10th Nov. 2008 (supra) and Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the assessee. In the absence of any contrary decision brought to our notice by Ld. DR and/or any other facts brought on record, we, respectfully following earlier order of Tribunal, allow ground No. 2 take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
