9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1070X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 14,32,922 made on account of unexplained jewellery out of the jewellery found at the time of search. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the facts of the case are clearly distinguishable from that of the cases relied upon. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Instruction no.1916 dated 11/05/1994 is guide lines for seizure of jewellery and ornaments in course of search with respect to the seizure in the case of person not assessed to tax and not to treat the unexplained jewellery as explained to the extent provided in the instruction even when no supporting evidences and bifurcation about its belonging to members of the family are given. 4. The Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s are that a search and seizure action was conducted in the case of assessee on 21.02.2006. Assessee filed his return of income on 28.02.2007 declaring total income of Rs. 35,430/-. Notice u/s.143(2) was issued on 17.09.2007 for initiating assessment proceedings. Assessing Officer completed the assessment of the assessee at a total income of Rs. 16,69,802/- by making two additions; i. for unaccounted cash at Rs. 2,10,450/- and ii. For unaccounted investment in jewellery at Rs. 14,23,922/-. 4. Aggrieved assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) who deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved Revenue is in appeal before us, only against the action of ld. CIT(A) on deletion of addition on account of unaccounted investmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther submitted that Assessing Officer has already accepted the explained jewellery of 3683.68 gr. and diamond of 117.63 carat and for the remaining jewellery of 1924.22 gr. as there was no justifiable explanation given by the assessee, he has taken shelter of the CBDT Instruction No.1916 dated 11.05.1994 which should be denied and the addition of unaccounted investment in jewellery at Rs. 14,23,922/- to be confirmed. 6. On the other hand, ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that assessee's family is a joint family, wherein assessee lives with his wife, two married sons and 3 grand children, in total, assessee's family is of 9 persons and the assessee's family belongs to Patel community in which gold and gold valuables are norma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .1916 dated 11.05.1994 refers to a minimum quantity of gold jewellery which normally is possessed by a married woman, unmarried woman and grand children and applying the same the minimum justified jewellery which could be possessed by assessee's wife, two daughters-in-law, two grand daughters and grand son will work out as under: Sr. No. Name Relationship Gold (Gms) 1. Devkorben Wife 500 2. Rashmitaben Daughter-in-law 500 3. Maitri Grand- daughter 250 4. Purva Grand- daughter 250 5. Jagrutiben Pareshbhai Daughter-in-law 500 6. Karya Pareshbhai Grand Son 100 Total 2100 As the remaining jewellery which the Assessing Officer has treated unexplained of 1924.22 gr. amounting to Rs. 14,23,922/- i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within the limit of 500 gr. of jewellery for a married woman, 250 gr. for unmarried daughters and 100 gr. with unmarried child. Though, the instruction speaks of not seizing the same during search operation extended meaning of the same shows extension that the jewellery should be treated as explained one and is not to be treated as unexplained for the purpose of income tax. Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain (2010) 235 CTR 0568 (Guj) has held as under: "Though it is true that the CBDT Circular No. 1916, dt.11th May, 1994 lays down guidelines for seizure of jewellery and ornaments in the course of search, the same takes into account the quantity of jewellery which would generally be held by fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of gold jewellery possessed by family members and grand children was given by the Assessing Officer from the total gold jewellery found at the time of search and seizure operation and differential gold jewellery of 1924.22 gr. is the gold jewellery possessed by the female members and minor children of the assessee's joint family and this quantity of 1924.22 gr. is well within the total limit of jewellery at 2100 gr. as per the CBDT instruction no.1916 dated 11.05.1994. Therefore by respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain (supra) and in view of our discussions made above, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) so as to warrant interference and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
