9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 627X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntiated valuation report of the government approved valuer, would in no way assist the assessee for characterising the jewellery found from his residential premises/lockers, as an investment made by him from explained sources. We thus not being able to persuade ourselves to accept the contention advanced by the ld. A.R, that the lower authorities had erred in treating the jewellery found from his premises/lockers during the course of the search proceedings, as an unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee, thus reject the same. Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) - Decided against assessee - ITA No.2842/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) - - - Dated:- 13-6-2019 - Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member And Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member Appellant by: Shri A. K. Ghosh, A.R Respondent by: Shri Chaitnya Anjaria, D.R ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by CIT(A)-53, Mumbai, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec.143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short Act ), dated 22.03.2016. The assessee assailing the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8,661 72,02,034 Insofar, the jewellery items found from the residence of the assessee were concerned, it was explained by the assessee in his statement recorded on 24.09.2013 that most of the jewellery items were purchased by him out of his personal funds, while for some of those were received as gifts. As regards the jewellery items which were found from the bank locker No. 1283 maintained by the assessee with Bank of Baroda, it was submitted by him that considering his family background the jewellery to the extent found could safely be held to be reasonable. Apart there from, it was submitted by the assessee that the majority of the aforesaid gold jewellery was part of the istridhan of his wife and mother. The assessee tried to impress upon the search officials, that the jewellery found in the aforesaid locker belonged to his mother, which after being remoulded into new designs was lying with him and his wife. Further, it was submitted by the assessee, that as his average salary was more than 20 lacs per year, therefore, he had substantial cash withdrawals which justifiably explained the investment made by him towards purchase of gold jewellery. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, Krishna Lee/a Society Bangur Nagar, Goregaon (W) Mumbai - 400 090 and at bank lockers, I would like to submit as under: Sr. No. Location of premises Jewellery found Jewellery seized 1. Flat No. D 11/12, 2nd Floor, Krishna Leela Society Bangur Nagar, Goregaon (W) Mumbai 400 090 ₹ 14,80,000.00 Nil 2. Bank of Baroda Goregaon (W) Locker No. 1283A ₹ 15,96,998.50 Nil 3. State Bank of Bikaner Jaipur Goregaon (W) Locker No. 324 ₹ 10,31,742.00 ₹ 30,93,943.00 With regard to above jewellery found, it is submitted that I am a Chartered Accountant qualified in 1990 and filing income tax returns since last 25 years. It is further submitted that my family is joint family and the staying together as per the Custom. I would like to state that the said Jewellery belongs to my Joint Family. The my family consist of Mrs. Poonam Pungalia( wife), Mrs. Jamku Devi Pungalia (mother), Master Hite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat as per the circular the jewellery is exceeding with 396 grams only which is purchased of out of my taxable income from time to time (bills are enclosed). In view of above I also pray to release jewellery seized from bank locker at the time of search. I also request you to release a sum of ₹ 4,35,900/- and ₹ 98,000/- deposited with income tax authorities. Further, the assessee vide his letter dated 12.03.2016 relied upon a valuation report of a government approved valuer, for the year 2001 and 2007 in respect of diamond and silver jewellery. Apart there from, the assessee also submitted the copy of the pension card of his mother, along with her pass book, in order to substantiate the source of purchase of jewellery by her. Further, it was also submitted by the assessee, that his father who was employed as a branch manager with State Bank of Bikaner Jaipur used to invest his savings towards purchase of jewellery and other tangible assets. In order to impress upon the A.O that the jewellery that was owned by him, his mother Smt. Jamku Devi and his wife Smt. Poonam Punglia was acquired out of explained sources, the assessee submitted copies of the valuation r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the same as an unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) after deliberating on the contentions advanced by the assessee was not persuaded to accept the same. It was observed by the CIT(A) that the A.O had already granted the requisite benefit and, had held the gold jewellery of 1450 gms as explained in the hands of the assessee and his family members. Further, it was observed by him, that the A.O had also not made any addition insofar the silverware items of ₹ 2.88 lacs that were found during the course of the search proceedings. In the backdrop of his aforesaid observations the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. 6. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. The ld. Authorized Representative (for short A.R ) for the assessee, took us through the relevant observations of the A.O in context of the issue under consideration. The ld. A.R drew our attention to the details of the gold and diamond jewellery that were found during the course of the search proceedings, at Page 1 of the assesses Paper Book (for short ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umbai. As is discernible from the orders of the lower authorities, the A.O observing that there were two married ladies, two male members and one unmarried lady in the family of the assessee, had thus, by drawing support from the CBDT Instruction No. 1916 observed, that jewellery weighing 1450 gms could safely be held as having been acquired by the assessee and his family members from explained sources. As regards the balance gold jewellery weighing 230.25 gms of a value of ₹ 5,68,031/- and, diamond jewellery of ₹ 23,58,117/-, it was observed by the A.O that as the assessee had failed to explain the source of acquisition of the same on the basis of any cogent material, therefore, he treated the same as an unexplained investment in his hand. 9. We have deliberated at length on the issue under consideration and, are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the contention of the ld. A.R, that the lower authorities had erred in treating the gold jewellery (wt. 230.25 gms) of a value of ₹ 5,68,031/- and, diamond jewellery of ₹ 23,58,117/-, as unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee. Admittedly, as is discernible from the orders of the lower aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
