9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 586X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 1540/DEL/2015 - - - Dated:- 4-5-2018 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Sh. Ved Jain, Sh Ashish Goel, CAs For The Revenue : Sh. Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DR. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM The Assessee has filed the Appeal against the Order dated 22.12.2014 of the Ld. CIT(A)-24, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2011-12 on the following grounds:- 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and fact in ignoring and rejecting the explanations and submissions made in regard to addition on account of gold and silver ornaments/ articles over and above permitted by CBDT s Instruction No. 1916 which is highly, unjustified, uncalled for and bad in law. 2. The assessee craves to have the right to add, amend or modify the grounds of appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a search seizure operation under section 132 of the IT Act was conducted at the business premises of M/s Best Group and as well as in the residential premise of the Directors on 28.03.2011, in consequence to which the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny. The AO has completed the assessment by making an addition o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n ITA No. 5259/Del/2007 dated 16.3.2018. - ITAT, Mumbai Bench decision in the case of DCIT vs. Haroon Mohd. Unni in ITA No. 463/Mum/2012 dated 31.1.2014. 5. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. He stated that the total jewellery found during the course of search was 2531.5 gms, out of which the AO has given assessee the benefit of 950 gms, as per the CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.4.1994 on account of wife and two children of the assessee. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has further allowed the benefit of 600 gms. of jewellery on account of mother and father of the assessee, holding that the same was allowable to the assessee as per the CBDT Instruction No. 1916, but however, sustained the balance addition made by the AO, treating the balance jewellery weighting 1050 gms of gold as unexplained, which does not need any interference. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the orders of the authorities below and the case laws referred by Assessee s counsel. We find that in this case a search seizure operation under section 132 of the IT Act was conducted at the business premises of M/s Best Group and as well as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra no. (iii) stipulates as under: The authorized officer may, having regard to the status of the family, and the custom and practices of the community to which the family belongs and other circumstances of the case, decide to exclude a larger quantity of jewellery and ornaments from seizure. 6.1 In view of above instructions, the excess jewellery found in the case of assessee, his parents, his wife, their children and the HUF was very nominal, and was very much reasonable, keeping in mind the riches and high status and more customary practices. Our aforesaid view is fortified by following decisions/judgments:- i) Judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Ashok Chadha vs. ITO reported in 14 taxmann.com 57 (Delhi.)/202 Taxmann 395 wherein the Hon ble High Court has accepted the jewellery of 906.60 grams in the case of married lady even without documentary evidence as the denying the explanation would tantamount to overlooking the realities of life by holding as under:- As far as addition qua jewellery is concerned, during the course of search, jewellery weighing 906.900 grams of the value amounting to ₹ 6,93,582 was found. The appellant&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as birth of a child. The assessee had been married more than 25-30 years and acquisition of the jewellery of 906.900 grams could not be treated as excessive. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand relied upon the reasoning given by the authorities below. After considering the aforesaid submissions we are of the view that addition made is totally arbitrary and is not founded on any cogent basis or evidence. We have to keep in mind that the assessee was married for more than 25-30 years. The jewellery in question is not very substantial. 'The learned counsel for the appellant/assessee is correct in her submission that it is a normal custom for woman to receive jewellery in the form of streedhan or on other occasions such as birth of a child etc. Collecting jewellery of 906.900 grams by a woman in a married life of 25-30 years is not abnormal. Furthermore, there was no valid and/or proper yardstick adopted by the Assessing Officer to treat only 400 grams as reasonable allowance and treat the other as unexplained . Matter would have been different if the quantum and value of the jewellery found was substantial. 4. We are, therefore, of the opinion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
