9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 153A/143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961(In short the Act ) dated 16.12.2011 framed by ACIT-2(1), Bhopal. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal; 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the addition of ₹ 6,51,090/- out of total addition of ₹ 9,51,090/- made by Ld. AO on account of jewellery found during search. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend the aforesaid ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual. The assessee has filed the original return of income on 28.03.2011 declaring total income of ₹ 6,70,502/-. A search u/s 132 was carried out at the residential premises of the assessee on 23.7.2009. The case for Assessment Year 2009-10 and 2010-11 were taken up for compulsory scrutiny. In Assessment Year 2010-11 addition of cash deposit of ₹ 1,47,000/- in the bank account and addition of ₹ 9,51,090/- in respect of jewellery found. Assessment u/s 143(3) for A.Y. 2010-11 was completed at ₹ 17,68,590/-. Aggrieved assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (550 grams) was found and seized. Though it was contended by the assessee that she received them as gifts from maternal side of relatives from her birth onwards and on many ceremonial as per culture but it was not sufficient to convince the Ld. A.O who proceeded ahead with the addition for total jewellery valued at ₹ 9,51,090/-. When the issue came up before the Ld. CIT(A) who in view of the guidelines issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes Instruction No.1916 dated 10.05.1994 held that the possession of the gold jewellery weighing 250 grams was quite normal for an unmarried girl in an Indian family. Ld. CIT(A) accordingly gave relief of ₹ 3,00,000/- and sustained the remaining addition. Ld. CIT(A) also did not give any weightage to the affidavits filed by the assessee which were issued by the assessee s relatives who have gifted gold jewellery to the assessee on various auspicious occasions. Ld. CIT(A) found them to be after thought as no such information was given during the course of search. 8. On perusal of the records and the submissions given by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee as an officer of the court, that during the course of search no specific question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties of life. In the peculiar facts of this case we answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue thereby deleting the aforesaid addition of ₹ 3,87,364. Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms . 10. We also find that the Hon'ble I.T.A.T. Delhi Bench in the case of Vibhu Aggarwal Vs. DCIT (2018) 93 taxmann.com 275 held as under; 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 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 called for an explanation during the assessment proceedings explaining all the items of jewellery found during the course of search. In reply, the assessee explained that the jewellery belongs to the assessee's parents, their HUF, assessee's family members and his HUF. Most of the jewellery items were inherited from his grandparents and recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Chaddha (supra) 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's explanation was that he was married about 25 years back and the jewellery comprised streedhan of Smt. Jyoti Chadha, his wife and other small items jewellery subsequently purchased and accumulated over the years. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the above explanation on the ground that documentary evidence regarding family status and their financial position was not furnished by the appellant. The Assessing Officer accepted 400 grams of jewellery as explained and treated jewellery amounti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... han 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 that the findings of the Tribunal are totally perverse and far from the realities of life. In the peculiar facts of this case we answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue thereby deleting the aforesaid addition of ₹ 3,87,364. 5. Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. (ii) Jurisdiction High Court in the case of Sushila Devi (supra) wherein it has been held as under:- The income tax authorities rationale or justification is ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
