9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 519X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra Bank, SDA Branch, New Delhi and jewellery weighing 464.75 gms jewellery was found from the residence of the appellant. We find that the Assessing Officer has followed Instruction No. 1916 of 1994 of CBDT in giving relief of 500 gms. per married lady in the family and has further allowed relief of 100 gms in respect of the husband of the appellant. CIT(A) further considering the status of the assessee s family, vis a vis the returned income of the appellant and her husband and after considering the fact that the appellant has been married for more than 25 years, further gave relief of 200 gms of gold jewellery in the case of mother in law of the assessee. After considering the complete status, relief has been granted and addition of ₹ 19.48 lakhs was confirmed by the CIT(A). Even before us, assessee has been constantly harping upon the status of the family of the appellant and returned income of the appellant and her husband. We are of the considered opinion that the first appellate authority has very judiciously considered all the aspects of the appellant and has given substantial relief. We are of the considered view that the status of the family would not justif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er reply, the assessee explained that the cash so found in the locker was received as gifts on the occasion of marriage and subsequent ceremonies of her younger daughter Ms. Ankita Goyal. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted copy of cash book. After considering the contents of the cash book, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the source of opening cash balance of ₹ 15,93,300/-. The Assessing Officer refused to entertain the claim of gifts on ceremonial functions. However, considering the status of the assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 5,42,800/- as unexplained cash. 5. The assessee agitated the matter before the ld. CIT(A) and reiterated her claim of having received gifts at the time of various ceremonial functions. 7. After considering the facts and submissions, and the custom prevailing in an Indian Hindu family and also considering the status of the assessee s family, the ld. CIT(A) observed that a part of the cash found can be treated as explained, being gifts. However, the ld. CIT(A) concluded by holding that looking at the status of the family, ₹ 4,40 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 11,26,561/- 12. The assessee was asked to explain the possession of jewellery so found. In her reply to the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act, the assessee stated as under: Statement of Smt. Bhawana Babbar w/o Sh. Rakesh Babbar recorded on during operation of Locker No. 323 Canara Bank, SDA Branch, New Delhi: Q. No. 7 Upon operation of locker jewellery valued at ₹ 77,83,778/- weighing 2300.45 gm gold and 142.18 cts diamond has been found. Kindly explain the source of acquisition of the same? Ans. The jewellery so found from the locker belongs to myself, my mother in law Smt. Janak Dulari and my married daughters Mrs. Ashima Behai and Ankita Goyal. The Jewellery have been acquired by us on various occasions as gifts received from relatives and friends as well as acquired/purchased by us for various purposes. Q. No. 8 Why the jewellery of your married daughters kept in your locker? Are they residing with you? Ans. Since my younger daughter Smt. Ankita Goyal is not maintain any locker in her name or in joint name with anyone, she had kept her own jeweller ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... married daughter (Smt. Ashima Behai and Smt. Ankita Goel). Moreover, the AO has applied straight jacketed formulae and given allowance of 500.00 gms. in respect of each married lady, without looking the period for which a lady is married. From perusal of the returns of income filed by the appellant (she filed return of income declaring income of ₹ 9,11,090/- for the AY 2015-16) and her husband (Sh. Rakesh Babbar who filed return of income declaring income of ₹ 20,40,000/- for AY 2015-16), the status of the family can be gauged looking at the fact that the appellant and her mother-in-law were married for a much longer period, further allowance of 200.00 gms. of the gold in case of the appellant and ₹ 300 gms of gold in case of mother-in-law of the appellant are allowed. Taking rate of gold as taken by the AO i.e. ( ₹ 2677.76 per gms. (AO has taken value of jewellery weighing at 2100.00 gms. at ₹ 56,23,300/-), the appellant gets relief of ₹ 13,38,880/- and balance amount of addition i.e. ₹ 19,48,159/- is confirmed. 16. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee once again reiterated that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w that the status of the family would not justify unexplained possession of jewellery. Even if a family has the highest status in the society, still the family is accountable for the possession of gold/jewellery/cash in hand and cannot take the shelter behind its status without explaining the source of possession. 23. Before parting, the ld. counsel for the assessee had taken an alternative plea that the valuation as per the gms. of gold jewellery adopted by the Assessing Officer should be taken as basis for making the addition of balance unexplained jewellery. We find that this has also been discussed by the ld. CIT(A) at para 7.11 of his order on page 12 wherein the ld. CIT(A) has given a categorical finding that this plea of the appellant cannot be accepted because the entire jewellery is not gold only. It has items of diamond also. Therefore, the act of the Assessing Officer in taking the rate as per rates of valuation of gold in valuation report cannot be stated to be erroneous. We do not find any error or infirmity in this finding of the ld. CIT(A). The alternative plea is dismissed. 24. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 72 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
