9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 918X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry ₹ 11,32,320/ Diamond ₹ 4,90,750/- Total ₹ 16,23,070/- The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain the sources of investment and other relevant details. The Assessing Officer noted that ₹ 5,25,000/- has been adjusted against the total jewellery of ₹ 16,23,070/-. It was clarified by the assessee that on account of payment of ₹ 5,25,000/- as a substitute against the total jewellery against, which no seizure was effected. Further, it was explained that search party was satisfied with the explanation and on the basis of total number of family members. In his written submission dated 5.12.2008, it was submitted that the jewellery was received on marriage and various other ceremonies. Further, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of ₹ 6,30,231/-. 4 Before us, the ld AR of the assessee has reiterated the submissions as made before the CIT(A), which are reproduced in para 3.3 of the order of the CIT(A) as under: "3.3 Regarding the jewellery found in the locker no.512 of UCO Bank valued at ₹ 13,46,780/- and at the house valued at ₹ 1,54,340/-belongs to the following family members: Sr.No. Particulars Weight In pcs In year 1 Hasadi set 58.6 3 1993 2 Earnings 20 4 1993 3 Jadtar Set 70 3 1993 4 Pendat Set 58 3 1993 Received in Engagement from Mother in laws by Hiten 1 Chain 25.3 1 1993 2 Diamond bracelet 25 1993 Received in engagement from Mother by Hiten 1 Chain 30 1 1993 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of Smt Pati Devi vs ITO & Anr reported in 240 ITR 727(kar) and submitted that the assessee is entitled to benefit as per the circular dated 11.5.1994 to the extent of limit prescribed in the said circular for each member of the family. 4.1 Alternatively, the ld AR of the assessee argued that tax involved in the revenue' appeal is less than ₹ 3 lacs and therefore, in view of CBDT circular the appeal of the revenue is not maintainable. 4.2 The ld DR on the other hand, submitted that the assessee has failed to submit any evidence to show that gold jewellery found during the course of search was received by members of the family of the assessee as gift on various occasions. Even the assessee did not produce bills, gift deed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar from the statement of the assessee and particularly the answer to the question no.17 that the entire jewellery claimed to have been received by wife of the assessee on various occasions and some part of the jewellery was purchased by the assessee himself. Thus, it was unambiguous claim by the assessee that the jewellery belongs to the wife of the assessee as she received the same on various occasions and some of the jewellery was purchased by the assessee himself. There is no whisper that any part of the jewellery belongs to the mother of the assessee. The jewellery found in the bank locker, in the name of the mother of the assessee has also been considered by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has given relief after considering the relevant materia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y on various occasions, the appellant and his wife deserve to be allowed the benefit as per CBDT instruction n.1916. The net weight of gold jewellery found in the locker stood at 1010.500 gms in addition to the value of diamond jewellery at ₹ 4,90,750/-. The appellant has argued that jewellery found in the locker was well within the limits of CBDT instruction no.1916 dt11.5.1994 which is not correct. As per the aforesaid instruction, the gold jewellery and ornaments to the extent of 500 gms per married lady and100 gms per male member of the family were not required to be sized. Therefore, even if the claim of the appellant is to be considered in the light of the aforesaid instructions, the gold jewellery up to the extent of 600 gms (1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and to the extent of the jewellery found in the bank locker in the name of the mother of the assessee. The instruction no.1916 dated 11.5.1994 reads as under: "Search & seizure Section 132 Instances of seizure of jewellery of small quantity in course of operations under s. 132 have come to the notice of the Board. The question of a common approach to situations where search parties come across items of jewellery, has been examined by the Board and following guidelines are issued for strict compliance - i) In the case of a wealth tax assessee, gold jewellery and ornaments found in excess of the gross weight declared in the wealth tax return only need be seized. ii) In the case of a person not assessed to wealth tax, gold jewellery ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
