9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 1282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 3. At the time of hearing before us, it was clarified by the learned counsel that by mistake in the grounds of appeal, the amount of ₹ 10,78,670/- is mentioned. It is in fact the income assessed and the only addition is ₹ 4,18,300/-. Therefore, the assessee s appeal may be considered against the addition of ₹ 4,18,300/- and the ground of the assessee s appeal may be deemed to be modified accordingly. The learned DR has no objection to this submission of the assessee s counsel. 4. The facts of the case are that search was carried out in the Swiss Glass Coat Group of cases and at the assessee s premises on 19-1-2006. In the course of search locker no.122 with Union of Bank of India in the name of Shri Sudarshan P. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellery found from the Locker in which no body else claimed ownership except the Appellant that too she accepted as received during her marriage. Moreover, the seizure was not made from her residence so that all the family members can be considered for the benefit of ownership of jewellery on the basis of CBDT Circular. The Assessing Officer has already given the benefit of 500 grams of jewellery to the Appellant, Hence, the contentions of Learned Counsel cannot be acceded to which are hereby rejected. Keeping in view of above facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is called for in the additions made in the present case. Hence, the first ground of appeal is hereby dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee stated th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be relied upon, then no addition can be made in the year under appeal, because as per statement jewellery was acquired in the year 1979. The Revenue cannot choose to rely upon the statement partly. If this statement is not accepted then the entire jewellery found from the family was only 1163 grams and the AO should allow the benefit as per the Board Circular. With regard to the applicability of the Board circular in the assessment, he relied upon the decision of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ratalal Vyparilal Jain, 235 CTR (Guj) 568. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed before us. We find that in the assessment order, the AO has himself has recorded that as per the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erally be held by family members of an assessee belonging to an ordinary Hindu household. The approach adopted by the Tribunal in following the said circular and giving benefit to the assessee, even for explaining the source in respect of the jewellery being held by the family is in consonance with the general practice in Hindu families whereby jewellery is gifted by the relatives and friends at the time of social functions, viz., marriages, birthdays, marriage anniversary and other festivals. These gifts are customary and customs prevailing in a society cannot be ignored. Thus although the circular had been issued for the purpose of non-seizure of jewellery during the course of search, the basis for the same recognizes customs prevailing i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
