9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee. Nothing was seized during search. As per CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994, jewellery of 500 grams in the case of married lady member need not be seized. In the case of CIT v. Ratanlal Vyapari [ 2010 (7) TMI 769 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] observed that CBDT Instruction No. 1916 laid down guidelines for seizure of jewellery in the course of search takes into account the quantity of jewellery which should be generally be held by the family members of an assessee, and, therefore, unless anything contrary is shown , it can be safely presumed that the source to the extent of the jewellery stated in the Circular stands explained. In the case of the assessee only 321 grams of jewellery belonging to the assessee was found, which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... failed to furnish copy of life insurance policy premium receipts and payment was not reflected in bank account. Hence, same was disallowed. 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that the AO has allowed deduction under section 80C of the Act were disallowed premium payment under section 69C of the Act. Being unexplained expenditure, hence, the addition so made by the AO was confirmed. 5. Being, aggrieved the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel submitted that the AO has disallowed the claim of the assessee did not furnish the copy of LIC premium receipt. However, these receipts furnished before the AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) appeal, which are appearing at paper book Page No. 12 to 14. Further, the payment of & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfirmed. 11. Being, aggrieved the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel submitted that the AO has disallowed the claim, as the assessee did not furnish the copy of a life insurance policy premium receipt. However, these receipts were furnished before the AO as well as Ld. CIT(A), which are appearing at Paper Book Page No.13 to 18. Further, the payment of LIP premium is duly entered in cash book (Paper Book Page No. 25) and made om 23.03.2012 by cash out of cash in hand. Therefore, the AO and CIT (A) were not justified in disallowing the expenditure/ claim. 12. Per contra, the ld. Sr. D.R. relied on the orders of lower authorities. 13. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... various decisions of the Courts to say that the gold jewellery and ornaments commensurate with the status of the family should be treated as explained. The assessee has produce bills of purchase of goods worth ₹ 2 Lacs in A.Y. 2007-08. It is observed that the total jewellery found belonging to the assessee was around 320 grams. Besides, there was Diamond studded jewellery of total value of ₹ 1,46, 240. The gold jewellery is held to be explained looking to the status of the family. Therefore, looking to totality of fact gold jewellery of ₹ 2,40,134 was held as explained and balance jewellery of ₹ 1,00,000 was confirmed as unexplained. 17. Being, aggrieved the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, therefore, unless anything contrary is shown , it can be safely presumed that the source to the extent of the jewellery stated in the Circular stands explained. We find that that in the case of the assessee only 321 grams of jewellery belonging to the assessee was found, which is less than 500 grams and same is inclusive diamond studded therein. Further, the assessee has filed bills for purchase of gold of ₹ 2 lakhs and shown diamond jewellery of ₹ 2,07,875 in the balance sheet for the relevant assessment year. In view of these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that CIT (A) was not justified in confirming the addition of ₹ 1,00.000 on account of diamond jewellery. In view of this matter, the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
