9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 936X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in construction business. The search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in his case on 24.02.2009. During the course of search, gold and diamond jewellery valued totally at ₹ 98,50,550/- was found from the residence of the Assessee. The diamond jewellery so found was worth ₹ 29,90,970/- and the same was surrendered by the Assessee as his undisclosed income. As regards the gold jewellery, it was explained by the assessee that the same to the extent of ₹ 44,27,370/- was belonging to one Mis.Juveria who was dealing in gold and diamond jewellery. This explanation of the assessee duly supported by the purchase bills was accepted by the AO. As regards the remaining jewellery, the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Gold Jewelry seized and offered to tax. Net weight of gold jewelry found. Shri Rafiq Mohd. Nazir Shaikh Family. 98,50,550/- 44,27,370/- 29,90,970/- 440,664/- 1696.9 2. At the outset, we reiterate that the appellant hails from a business community and being a man of means, he and his family members could have possessed 1850 gms of jewelry dating from the period of his marriage to the birth of his children till the date of search. 3. Further, vide Circular No. 1916, dated 11.05.1994, the Central Board of Direct Taxes has issued guidelines for seizure of jewelry, which clearly states ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng 1850 gms could have been held by the appellant and his family. Hence the additions of ₹ 13,36,977/- being the value of 1350 gms, amounts to not allowing the allowance for the male members, ladies for 500 gms and the children, which is incorrect. 6. Further we also enclose herewith copy of ITA No. 2343/Adh/2009 order passed in the case of Smt. Neeta Sudarshan Amin Vs. ACIT [(2011) 2011 TPI 621(ITAT-Ahmedabad)] in support of our above claim. In view of the above facts, the addition of ₹ 13,36,977/- made on account of gold jewelry be deleted in toto as the allowance for possession of gold by male members and children of the family should be considered keeping in mind the status of the family. The Ld. CIT(A) found merit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of CIT Vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain (supra) relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) wherein it was held that even though the CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994 lays down guidelines for seizure of jewellery in the course of search, the same takes into account the quantity of jewellery which could generally be held by family members belonging to an ordinary house hold. Hon ble Gujarat High Court therefore upheld the approach adopted by the Tribunal in following the said circular and giving benefit to the Assessee, observing that the same is in consonance with the general practice in the Indian families where jewellery is gifted by the relatives and friends at the time of social functions such as marriage, birthdays and other festiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
