9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 971X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e factum of the assessee’s daughter-in-law, a working woman, having her own separate locker, amply goes to prove that she was keeping her jewellery separate from that of the larger family. Presently, we are dealing with the assessment of the assessee. It is, but, natural that the unexplained jewellery, if any, belonging to the assessee’s son and daughter-in-law, both of whom are separately assessed to tax, cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee. In our considered opinion, the ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in excluding from consideration the value of jewellery found in the bed room and locker of the assessee’s daughter-in-law. Applicability or otherwise of Instruction No.1916 dated 11.5.1994 - no seizure of jewellery can be made up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts of the case are that the assessee was subjected to a search action u/s 132(1) at his residential premises. During the course of search, certain cash, jewellery and other documents were found. Total jewellery weighing 2327.6 gms. valued at ₹ 41,67,837/- was found from the assessee and his family members, detailed as under:- i) Jewellery belonging to Smt. Neelam Verma W/o Sh. Subash Chander Verma from the residence at N-34, 1st Floor, GK Part I, N Delhi. Rs.13,87,056/- ii) Locker No.727 Alaknanda Vaults Pvt. Ltd., N Delhi belonging to Smt. Neelam Verma Rs.8,22,520/- iii) Locker No.726 Alaknanda Vaults Pvt. Ltd., N Delhi belonging to Smt. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The first issue taken up by the ld. DR is about the exclusion by ld. CIT(A) from consideration in the hands of the assessee, the jewellery found from the bed room of the assessee s son and locker of his daughter-in-law. We have noticed that total jewellery of 2327.600 gms was found from the bed rooms of the assessee and his son and two lockers, viz., one in the name of the assessee s wife and the other in the name of the assessee s daughter-in-law. In response to question no. 3, during the course of statement recorded u/s 132(4), the assessee submitted that his wife was employed with National Insurance Company and his son Shri Sumit Verma was employed with M/s Religare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 5. The next issue is about the applicability or otherwise of Instruction No.1916 dated 11.5.1994. As per this CBDT Instruction, no seizure of jewellery can be made upto 500 gms belonging to a married lady, 250 gms. belonging to unmarried girls and 100 gms belonging to males. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition to the extent of 1100 gms from the total jewellery belonging to the assessee by relying on this Instruction. The ld. DR vehemently contended that such an Instruction is relevant only for seizure at the time of search and hence cannot be applied in the context of addition. He tried to fortify his view by relying on the judgment of the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of VGP Ravidas vs. ACIT (2014) 51 Taxmann.com 16 (Mad). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n ble Karnataka High Court and Hon ble Gujarat High Court, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in treating the jewellery weighing 1100 gms as explained out of total jewellery of 1236.80 gms. 7. The ld. AR relied on the judgment dated 27.7.2011 of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in Ashok Chaddha vs. ITO ( a copy placed on record) to argue that the remaining addition be also deleted. In that case, jewellery weighing 906.900 gms was found and the AO accepted only 400 gms. as explained. Addition was made for the remaining jewellery to the extent of 506.900. The Hon ble High Court treated the entire jewellery explained by considering that holding of such a jewellery could not be considered as excessive `in the peculiar facts of this case . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
