9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he AO should quantify the quantum of jewellery to be accepted per lady whether 250 gms or 500 gms and then allow benefit to the assessee accordingly. Levy of interest u/ss. 234A, 234B and 234C is mandatory and consequential in nature. - ITA No.737/Bang/2016 - - - Dated:- 6-12-2016 - SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by : Shri. H. N. Khincha, CA Revenue by : Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT ORDER Per George George K, JM : This appeal at the instance of the assessee, is directed against the order of the CIT (A)-11, Bangalore. The relevant assessment year is 2012-13. 2. The assessee has, in his grounds of appeal, raised two effective grounds, namely: (1) t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in terms of Board s Instruction No.1916 dated 11.5.1994, the details of which given by the assessee vide his letter dt.11.4.2014 is as under: Sl. No. Members Gms 01 Credit to be given for self 200 02 Santosh Kumari 500 03 G. Neeraj Kumar 200 04 G. Rohit Kumar 200 05 Neetha 500 06 Labdhi 250 07 HUF 250 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not brought anything on record to suggest that he or his family members have received gifts during any function. All the contentions have been dealt with by the assessing officer in detail in her assessment order. Humbly following the order of the jurisdictional Tribunal in the above mentioned case of M. Sushil Kumar [M.Sushil Kumar v. DCIT in ITA NO.644(BNG)/2015 dated 30.12.2015]and in absence of any evidence to support the contention of the appellant, the addition made by the assessing officer is UPHELD . 5. Aggrieved, the assessee has come up before us with the present appeal. During the course of hearing, the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the assessee are summarized as under: - That the authorities below have e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... longed to a Marwadi business family and it was the tradition of the marwadi family to receive gold jewellery and silver items on various festive occasion and other occasions like marriage, betrothal, child birth etc., It was also contended that it was common for every Hindu women-folk to have/possess gold, silver ornaments etc., which, according to the assessee, the status and background of the family will be gauged based on the possession of such ornaments. As could be seen from the findings of the AO in her impugned order under dispute that she had fairly conceded the assessee s submission with a rider [Refer: Para 5 (a) of the asst. order] .Therefore its onus on the assessee to keep the entire receipts accounted and be able to explai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clared in the wealth-tax return only need be seized; (ii) In the case of a person not assessed to wealth-tax gold jewellery and ornaments 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; (iii) The authorized officer may, having regard to the status of the family, and the custom sand practices of the community to which the family belongs and other circumstances of the case, decide to exclude a larger quantity of jewellery and ornaments from seizure. This should be reported to the director of Income-tax/Commissioner authorizing the search at the time of furnishing the search report; (iv) In all cases, a detailed inventory of the jewellery and ornamen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f that could be given to the assessee in addition to what was given by the AO was 950 gms. Viz., 100 gms for assessee, 100 gms for assessee s son, 250 gms for assessee s daughter and 500 gms for assessee s daughter-in-law. Contention of the ld. AR that status of the assessee had to be considered and higher relief should be given cannot be accepted for the simple reason that nothing was produced to show any special social status enjoyed by the assessee except for stating that the assessee belonged to a Marwari business family. 10. On an identical issue, the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smt Pati Devi v. Income-tax Officer reported in (1999) 240 ITR 72 (Kar), had ruled as under: Learned counsel for the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
