9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 878X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed income of any sort from any source. No corroborative evidence has been placed on record by the revenue to show that the said excess jewellery found during search exclusively belonged to, or was purchased out of unaccounted income of the assessee - jewellery is something which primarily belongs to the ladies of the House. Moreover, in the present case, once it is accepted that these jewellery items belong to other members of the family and the assesse has given specific details regarding such items identified to other family members, therefore, in our view, the entire addition could not have been made in the hands of assessee alone and it should have been added on pro-rata basis in the hands of all the family members and not the assessee alone. It has already been brought on record that all the family members are income tax payee and are filing their respective income tax returns. Therefore, the addition so made in the hands of assessee needs to be reduced on this score. Hence, we direct the A.O. to make addition in respect of unexplained jewellery on pro-rata basis and restrict the additions in the hands of assessee of his share alone. Appeal of the assessee is allowed partly. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of both the parties as well as perusal of material placed on record, had given part relief to the assessee. Against the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred present appeal before the ITAT on the ground taken above. 5. All the grounds of appeal are interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A) in giving part relief to the assessee. The ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has reiterated the same arguments as were raised before the ld. CIT(A) and relied upon the written submissions filed before the Bench and the contents of the same is reproduced below: All the Grounds of Appeal revolve around the addition on account of jewellery and stones found during search. It may be stated at the outset that the circular no. 1916 of the CBDT , which has been relied on by the Assessing Officer, also makes it clear that it was : i) issued to nullify small quantity of jewellery being seized , it did not lay down the maximum amount to be credited to one family member; ii) it differentiated between married females, unmarried ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2,66,706 2,73,067 84,061 Manphooli Devi 6,10,587 6,54,971 6,82,742 Suresh Kumar 1,26,000 2,87,055 2,99,197 Ojas Badaya A.Y 2019-20 3,06,840/- Copies of the returns filed by Smt. Munni Devi, Manphooli devi, Preeti Devi. Suresh Kumar for A.Y. 2018-19 and that filed by Oj as Badaya for A.Y. 2019-20 are enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure 2 (colly.) It is submitted that the figures given above shows that the status of the family was much above average , which fact was not truly appreciated by both the AO and the CIT(A) . It is also submitted that the Appellant belongs to the Gupta(baniya ) or business family and by tradition they have lot of gold and gold ornaments in the family, brought down from generations, received from elders , friends, and relatives during festivals, marriages, social occasions etc. This is the custom and practice of the community to which the assessee belongs. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectively. If the same ratio is adopted, then there are 3 married females, I unmarried female and 3 males in the joint family. If additional credit is given in the same ratio as given in the circular cited above, no addition results. To sum up, in view of the facts of the case, and the law thereon , keeping in mind the status and standing of the family, and the Indian tradition in the baniya community, the jewellery found during search can be easily explained to have been acquired from ancestors, and on the occasion of festivals, marriages etc. In view of the above, the addition of ₹ 9,29,858/- sustained by the worthy CIT(A) deserves to be deleted. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR has relied on the orders of the revenue authorities. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and carefully perused the material available on record. As per the facts of the present case, a search U/s 132 of Act was conducted on the business and residential premises of M/s Integral Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. and the persons associated with it on 11/12/2016. Since the assessee was one such person who was subjected to search operation, therefore, proceedings U/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he status and standing of the family of the assessee because the status and standing of the family of the assessee was higher than the minimum recognize by the said circular and as per the assessee, the assesse was living in a joint family and almost all members of the family were income tax payers and were filing their respective returns of income and in this respect, the assessee has also filed on record details of income tax paid by each member of the joint family and the details of the same are as under: S.No. Assessment Year Income returned 1. 2017-18 11,59,640/- 2. 2016-17 12,13,460/- 3. 2015-16 9,96,590/- 4. 2014-15 8,72,640/- 5. 2013-14 7,79,360/- 6. 2012-13 6,71,600/- Name of family member A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty. Thus, he does not have any ostensible source of income which could generate unaccounted income. We further found from the records that no incriminating document was found during search of his residence to show or demonstrate that the assessee had unaccounted income of any sort from any source. No corroborative evidence has been placed on record by the revenue to show that the said excess jewellery found during search exclusively belonged to, or was purchased out of unaccounted income of the assessee. Further in our view, jewellery is something which primarily belongs to the ladies of the House. Moreover, in the present case, once it is accepted that these jewellery items belong to other members of the family and the assesse has given specific details regarding such items identified to other family members, therefore, in our view, the entire addition could not have been made in the hands of assessee alone and it should have been added on pro-rata basis in the hands of all the family members and not the assessee alone. It has already been brought on record that all the family members are income tax payee and are filing their respective income tax returns. Therefore, the addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
