9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,314/-, therefore, the A.O after considering gold jewellery (weight 100 gms) of a value of ₹ 2,80,000/- as explained, made an addition of the balance gold jewellery (weight 838.03) of a value of ₹ 19,90,313/- as an unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee. CIT(A) after taking cognizance of the CBDT Instruction No. 1916, dated 11.05.1994, had observed that as observed by various courts, gold jewellery found to the extent of the limit mentioned in the aforesaid instruction was to be treated as explained and no addition could be made to that extent. On the basis of his aforesaid observations, the CIT(A) had after considering 600 gms of gold jewellery [500 gms for assesses wife (+) 100 gms for the assessee] as explain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. On the facts and circumstance of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in restricting the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in making an addition of ₹ 8,18,134/- on account of alleged Unexplained gold jewellery found during the course of search action, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The appel lant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete the said ground of appeal. 2. Briefly stated, search and seizure action under Sec. 132(1) of the I.T Act was carried out in the case of Rose group of companies on 20.02.2014 and on subsequent dates. During the course of the search proceedings total gold diamond jewellery of the assessee and his family ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explained, held the balance gold jewellery (weight 838.03 gms) of a value ₹ 19,90,313/- as an unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after deliberating on the contentions advanced by the assessee, observed that the A.O had after considering 100 gms (out of the total jewellery of 938.03 gms) as explained, had made the addition of the balance 838.03 gms of gold jewellery of a value of ₹ 19,90,313/- in the hands of the assessee. The CIT(A) taking cognizance of the CBDT Instruction No. 1916, dated 11.05.1994, observed that as held by various courts, gold jewellery found to the extent of limit mentioned in the aforesaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal after perusing the orders of the lower authorities and hearing the respondent revenue. 5. The ld. Departmental Representative (for short D.R ) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the ld. D.R that as the assessee had failed to substantiate the source of gold jewellery of ₹ 8,18,134/-, therefore, the CIT(A) had rightly upheld the addition to the said extent. 6. We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. Admittedly, during the course of the search proceedings gold diamond jewellery of ₹ 1,03,67,275/- was found lying the bank lockers and the residence of the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ery found to the extent of the limit mentioned in the aforesaid instruction was to be treated as explained and no addition could be made to that extent. On the basis of his aforesaid observations, the CIT(A) had after considering 600 gms of gold jewellery [500 gms for assesses wife (+) 100 gms for the assessee] as explained jewellery, therein restricted the addition as regards the balance jewellery (weight 338.03 gms) of a value of ₹ 8,18,134/-. 8. We have deliberated at length on the facts of the case, in the backdrop of the observations of the lower authorities. In our considered view, the CIT(A) by adopting a liberal approach had already granted substantial relief to the assessee. As is discernible from the orders of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
