9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 804X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is not unreasonable to have the quantity of gold in his possession. Further, it was unexpected to reject the contention of the assessee merely for non-filing of return of wealth tax as well as the statement of affairs under the income tax act when assessee is not legally obliged to. In view of this, we delete the addition made by the ld AO and reverse the order of Ld CIT (A). In the result ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 80C - nexus between income earned and income invested - Held that:- It is normal behaviour of an individual's private life that all incomes are amalgamated and spent. The Income-tax Act does not require that the investment in NSC should be made from the same amount w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al of the assessee is against the order of the ld CIT(A) wherein an addition of ₹ 923000/- was reduced by only 100 grams instead of deleting and thereby confirming the balance jewellery as undisclosed income of the assessee. During the course of search u/s 132 of the Act on 17.01.2006 jewellery amounting to ₹ 1505075/- was found in case of the assessee and his wife Pooja Mantaktala. During the course of search the assessee submitted that it was received on various social occasion. For this submission the assessee substantiated by producing letters of the gift and also the affidavit of the mother in law of the wife of the assessee. The ld Assessing Officer rejected the submission for the reason that since the jewelry was neither ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1996 squarely covers the issue in its favour. He therefore, submitted that the ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition. 5. Ld DR relied upon the order of the ld Assessing Officer and ld CIT(A) and further submitted that the assessee's family status can be seen from the fact that he was earning salary of only ₹ 45000/-. 6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. During the course of search jewellery weighing 1036 gm was added in the hands of the assessee amounting to ₹ 923000/- and jewellery 1330 gms amounting to ₹ 1050000/- was added in the hands of the wife of the assessee. During the course of search the statement of the assessee was recorded wherein it was submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 80 C of the act of ₹ 20,000/-. the claim of the assessee was for ₹ 50,000/- out of which ₹ 30,000/- was allowed by the ld AO for the reason that it should be out of income chargeable to tax, which was confirmed by CIT (A). 8. LD AR submitted that there is no condition as envisaged by the lower authorities. He submitted plethora of case laws to support his contention. Ld DR relied up on the orders of lower authorities. 9. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. There is divergent view of the legal contentions raised by the parties and we are duty bound to take the view, which is favorable to assessee. Therefore respectfully following the decision in case of Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee is allowed. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No. 1779/Del/2012 (Assessment Year: 2006-07) Pooja Mantaktala, C-1, Street, 6-F, Sainik Farms, New Delhi PAN:AIBPM4313M (Appellant) Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi (Respondent) 11. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1. That the order of the ld CIT(A) is bad in law and on facts. 2. That the ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition made by the Assessing on account of unexplained investment after reducing the value of jewellary of 500 gm per married lady at per Board instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994 under the provisions of section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961." 12. Ground no is general and therefore dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
