9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 469X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as being filed. No documentary evidence was submitted in respect of gifts, etc. No evidence was produced to prove that jewellery is related to other individuals namely Smt. Mandakini Roy and Smt. Mansi Roy Srivatsav. A.O. ought to have made enquiry from other persons. No such enquiry was made. Ld. CIT(A) also in a mechanical manner without conducting any enquiry from the other members of the family proceeded to give benefit to the extent of 700 gms. only. A.O. ought to have made enquiries from the other persons. In the absence of such enquiry, in our view, addition so made is not justified. It is also common practice in Indian household that ladies share their locker for storing ornaments with other family members. The jewellery is rece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... belonging to Mrs. Mandakini Rai, Daughter in Law of the assessee (eligible for holding gold jewellery weighing 500 grams) and Ku. Ananya Rai, Grand daughter of the assessee (eligible for holding gold jewellery weighing 250 grams.) 3. The appellant craves leave to add, to amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal as and when necessary. 2. Briefly stated facts are that search seizure operation u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the Act ) was carried out at the residential and business premises of the persons/partners and associate concerns of Regal Homes and Dwarkadheesh Haveli Builders Group of Bhopal on 12.8.2014. The assessee being one of the member of the Regal Homes Group, search operation was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24,52,309/- 2. Silver articles weighing 1960.00 gram (net wt.) 73,923/- Total 25,26,332/- 3. During the course of search statement u/s 132(4) of the assessee was recorded and in reply to question no.7 assessee stated that his family consists of herself, her husband Shri Rakesh Kumar Rai, Son Shri Rishin Rai, Daughter-in-law Smt. Mandakini Rai and Daughter Smt. Mansi Rai. A copy of statement u/ 132(4) is enclosed herewith. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings it was explained that the jewellery and silver articles found during the course of search is covered within the guidelines prescribed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y at ₹ 24,52,309/-found during the course of search. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. A.O. assessee preferred appeal and reiterated the submission before the Ld. CIT(A) who hold that in view of the CBDT circular and decision relied by the assessee gold jewellery to the extent of 700 grams is reasonable and maintained the addition 266 grams. 8. Being dissatisfied from the order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee filed present appeal. Now our humble submissions before your honour are as under: ( i) The Ld. CIT(A) hold that jewellery to the extent of 700 grams is reasonable the break up of which is as under: Neeta Rai (Appellant assessee) 500 grams Rakesh Kumar R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that before the A.O. the assessee had categorically submitted as under: 7.6 In the written reply dated 22.9.2016 the assessee has stated as under:- Out of 966.50 Gram Gold jewellery, 346.90 gram, Gold jewellery belongs to Smt. Neeta Rai, 477.20 Gram Gold Jewellery belongs to Smt. Mandakni Rai (Daughter-in-law) and 142.40 gram Gold Jewllery belongs to Smt. Mansi Rai Shrivastava. Out of 1960.00 Gram Silver articles, 1187.00 gram silver articles belongs to Smt. Neeta Rai, 400.00 Silver articles belongs to Smt. Mandakni Rai and 200.00 gram silver articles belongs to Smt. Mansi Rai Shrivastava. 1. Mrs. Neeta Rai did not purchase any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xplain the jewellery found in the locker clearly establishing that the jewellery was acquired through undisclosed sources. ii. No bills and vouchers have been submitted by the assessee. iii. No documentary evidence with regard to the receipts of gifts has been submitted by the assessee. iv. No documentary evidence has been submitted to prove that the jewellery is related to Smt. Mandakni Rai or Smt. Mansi Rai Shrivastava. v. The assessee has merely submitted a list of some of the relatives and has claimed that the jewellery has been received as gift from them, however, no documentary evidence has been submitted by the assessee to prove the gift paying capacity of these persons. vi. The assessee has failed to ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
