9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1070X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and accordingly, the grounds taken by the Revenue are rejected. - Decided against revenue - ITA No. 2613/Ahd/2009 - - - Dated:- 5-11-2015 - Rajpal Yadav, JM And Manish Borad, AM For the Appellant : Smt Vibha Bhalla, Sr.DR For the Respondent : Shri P M Mehta, AR ORDER Per Manish Borad, Accountant Member This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of CIT(A)-II, Ahmedabad, dated 08.06.2009 relating to A.Y. 2006-07 and assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') on 31.12.2007 by DCIT, Central Circle-2, Surat. 2. Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of ₹ 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer. 5. Aggrieved Revenue is in appeal before us, only against the action of ld. CIT(A) on deletion of addition on account of unaccounted investment in jewellery. Ld. D.R. submitted that during course of search and seizure operation jewellery totaling to 5607.90 gr. Gold and 101.18 carat diamond were found from the premises of the assessee (967.9 gr. Gold and 16.95 carat diamond were found from the residence and 4639.9 gr. Gold and 84.23 carat diamond were found form the lockers). Out of this, 1542.100 gr. Gold was seized by the department. During the assessment proceedings, assessee was asked about the source of investment in the Gold jewellery of 5607.90 gr. and assessee was able to explain the source of jewellery of 3683.68 gr. Gold and in relation to balance jewellery of 192422 gr. Gold, assessee pleaded to take benefit of the instruction no.1916 of CBDT dated 11.05.1994, according to which, credit to family members was available up to 2100 gr. in following manner: Sr. No. Name Relationship Gold (Gms) 1. Devkorben Wife 500 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER NOTE 1 BELOW AS PER NOTE 2 BELOW 124.300 3. GIFT RECEIVED BY CHANDRAKANT (SON OF THE ASSESSEE) AS PER NOTE 3 BELOW 636.510 22.88 4. GIFT RECEIVED BY PARESHBHAI (SON OF THE ASSESSEE) AS PER NOTE a BELOW 1007.310 48.14 5. JEWELLERY AS PER CUSTOM TRADITION PREVALING IN THE COMMUNITY OF THE ASSESSEE THE INSTRUCTION NO. 191 6 DATED 11.05.1994, ISSUED BY CBDT OWNERSHIP / POSSESSION OF JEWELLERY AS PER NOTE 5 BELOW 2100.000 TOTAL 5783.680 117.63 6.2 Ld. A.R. took us through the above chart and brought to our notice that 5783.68 gr. gold and 117.63 carat diamond was duly explained on the basis of wealth tax records, purchases during F.Y. 2005-06, gifts received by two sons, namely, Shri Chandrakant Khokhariya and Shri Pareshbhai Khokhariya and jewellery owned and possessed in the joint name by assessee's wife, two daughters-in-law, thr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly members including assessee's wife, two recently married daughter-inlaw, 3 grand children, who certainly had received gift of gold jewellery from their parents, relatives and other family members on various auspicious occasions, festivals and marriage ceremonies. 7.2 The CBDT instruction no.1916 dated 11.05.1994 suggests that a family is supposed to hold certain jewellery received at the time of marriages from parents and in laws 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 family ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
