9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Smt. Satya Bhalla [ 2016 (5) TMI 1571 - ITAT DELHI] we are of the considered opinion that pursuant to the CBDT instructions, the wife of the assessee is entitled to keep 500 g of jewellery the source of which is a demoted have been explained and, therefore, no addition could be made are sustained. We accordingly allow ground No. 1 and 2 of assessee s appeal. Cash found during the search operations - As per AO that no proper explanation supported by documents was given by the assessee regarding this amount - CIT(A) observed that even during the appellate proceedings, though it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that the amount of ₹ 50,000/- was available due to the withdrawal from the bank from different members of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce was produced by the assessee. Report of valuation of jewellery, as could be found at page No. 11 of the paper book, shows the weight of gold attributable to the possession of the assessee was about 295.1 g and there is also a diamond of 16.5 carats in that jewellery. Learned Assessing Officer proceeded to add the worth of this jewellery, namely, ₹ 10, 14, 418/-to the income of the assessee. Apart from this learned Assessing Officer also added a sum of ₹ 50,000/- on account of the cash possessed but unexplained of its sources. Learned Assessing Officer, therefore, determined the income of the assessee at ₹ 15, 75, 818/-for the assessment year 2013-14 as against the returned income of ₹ 3, 91, 400/-and ₹ 1.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a diamond therein to the possession of the assessee, while giving credit of 500 g to the assessee s wife and hundred grams to the assessee, the assessee s possession could be presumed to have been explained up to 600 g and therefore in terms of CBDT instruction No. 1916 no addition could be sustained. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ratan Lal Vyaparilal Lal Jain (2011) 339 ITR 0351. 6. Ld. DR, per contra, submitted that the CBDT instruction No. 1916 covers only in respect of gold but not in respect of diamond and therefore, even if the benefit of such circular is given to the assessee, addition to the extent of worked of the diamond has to be sustained. 7. We have gone throu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he relatives and friends at the time of social functions, viz., marriages, birthdays, marriage anniversary and other festivals. These gifts are customary and customs prevailing in a society cannot be ignored. Thus although the circular had been issued for the purpose of non-seizure of jewellery during the course of search, the basis for the same recognizes customs prevailing in Hindu society. In the circumstances, unless the Revenue shows anything to the contrary, it can safely be presumed that the source to the extent of the jewellery stated in the circular stands explained. Thus, the approach adopted by the Tribunal in considering the extent of jewellery specified under the said circular to be a reasonable quantity, cannot be faulted with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. We accordingly allow ground No. 1 and 2 of assessee s appeal. 10. Now coming to ground No. 3 in respect of the cash to the tune of ₹ 50,000/-, found during the search operations, learned Assessing Officer observed that no proper explanation supported by documents wasgiven by the assessee regarding this amount. Ld. CIT(A) observed that even during the appellate proceedings, though it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that the amount of ₹ 50,000/- was available due to the withdrawal from the bank from different members of the family, no evidence to show the withdrawals from the bank or the cashbook or through any other documentary evidence was produced and thereby confirmed the addition. Before us also no new facts ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
