9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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 assessee belonged to a marwari business family. Vis-a-vis silver, circular does not mention anything about holding of silver or diamonds. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the maximum relief that could be given to the assessee is only on the value of gold jewelelry to the extent of holding mentioned at para 8 above. Addition made for unexplained silver found at the time of search was in our opinion was justified. AO is directed to give relief to the assessee for 950 gms of gold jewellery and rework the addition accordingly. Appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed. - I.T.A No. 642/Bang/2015, I.T.A No.642/Bang/2015 - - - Dated:- 14-8-2015 - N. V. Vasudevan (Judicial Member) And Abraham P. George (Accountant Member) For the Assessee : H. N. Khincha, CA For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d diamond jewellery at the time of a search. It could not be construed or taken as a credit for explaining the source. However he allowed credit for gold of 753 gms declared by assessee s wife in her WT return. Balance of 1,173.19 gms of gold was held to be unexplained investment in jewellery of the assessee. Vis-a-vis silver articles of 69.5 kgs found at the time of search rebate for 5.4 kgs declared by assessee s wife in her WT return was given and the balance of 64.1 kg was considered unexplained. The value for the 1,173.19 gms of gold was fixed at ₹ 30,43,254/- and for 64.1 kgs of silver at ₹ 32,69,100/-. Since the assessee had admitted a sum of ₹ 30 lakhs in the return of the impugned assessment year, balance of ₹ 33,12,350/- was brought to tax. 04. Aggrieved assessee moved in appeal before the CIT (A). Reliance was placed by the assessee on CBDT circular No.1916 (supra), for claiming credit of 1,400 gms of gold jewellery. However, CIT (A) was not impressed. According to him, the circular did not apply to the assessee since assessee s wife had already filed WT returns. Further Ld. CIT (A) noted that credit for ancestral jewellery was allowed in the h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 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 the 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 in the Hindu society. In the circumstances, unless the Revenue shows anything to the contrary, it can safely be presumed that the source to the extent of the jewellery stated in the circular stands explained. Thus, the approach adopted by the Tribunal in considering the extent of jewellery specified under the said circular to be a reasonable quantity, cannot be faulted with. In the circumstances, it is not possible to state that the Tribunal has committed any legal error so as to give rise to a question of law. 08. We are th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g on CBDT circular No.1916 (supra). AO did not allow any relief claimed by the assessee, but for the amounts disclosed by assessee in his return. In other words, he considered whole of 2,717.78 gms of gold, 27.88 kgs of silver and 4.2 carats of diamond to be undisclosed, but allowed relief of ₹ 19,20,000/- of gold jewellery, ₹ 7,50,000/- for silver jewellery and ₹ 60,000/- for diamonds, since these were reflected in the return filed by the assessee for the impugned assessment year. Addition made came to ₹ 60,31,937/-. 11. In the appeal filed before the CIT (A), assessee took similar arguments as made by his brother Vimal Kumar. In addition assessee also stated that 1,275 gms of gold, 12 kgs of silver articles and 6 carats of diamonds were declared by his wife in her IT return filed for A. Y. 2010-11 on 20.07.2000. Assessee also pointed out before the CIT (A) that in the WT return filed by his wife for 1992- 93, gold jewellery of 975 gms, silver articles of 12 kgs and 6 carats of diamonds were shown. As per the assessee credits for these were not given by the AO. 12. CIT (A) was of the opinion that CBDT circular No.1916 (supra) could not be extended for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
