9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1779X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CIT(A)-V, Hyderabad dated 10.07.2012 for the assessment year 2008-09. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is the wife of Shri Inderjeet Singh Makhija on whom a survey operation under section 133A was conducted on 29.11.2007 and subsequently, the survey was converted into search operation under section 132 of the I.T. Act. During the search and seizure operation under section 13 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceived by her at the time of marriage. The CIT(A) held that keeping in view of the status of the assessee 500 grams of the jewellery is to be considered as gifts on the occasion of marriage as well as on other occasions and therefore, only the balance jewellery is to be held as purchases out of undisclosed sources and added the balance addition accordingly. 4. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been listed as Inderijeet Singh Makhija, Satpreet Singh, Sanjeet Singh, Saran Kaur, Pooja. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per CBDT Instruction No. 1916, 500 grams of gold is to be allowed as normal jewellery received on marriage and other occasions in the case of a married lady and 100 grams in the case of men. He submitted that taking the 5 Members into consideration 1300 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... family members and hence, there cannot be jewellery which is common for the family. Giving the benefit of doubt to the assessee and also relying on the circular of the CBDT 1916, we allow 1300 grams of gold taking into account that there are 5 family members and with respect to the balance 223.8 grams, we direct the Assessing Officer to apply the principle of telescoping of unexplained investment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
