9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IS 1997 - HELD THAT:- In this case, as submitted by the counsel of the assessee, if the entire jewellery found in the locker is considered, still the same is less by 700 gms which a normal middle-class family was supposed to possess out of the past savings, gifts etc. Therefore, in the light of the above observation of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in RATANLAL VYAPARILAL JAIN [ 2010 (7) TMI 769 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] the aforesaid jewellery found from the locker of the assessee being less than the minimum quantity as instructed by the CBDT which a normal family under normal circumstances is supposed to possess, we do not find any justification on the part of the lower authorities to treat the same as unexplained. Also the above found jewellery is even otherwise less than the value of the jewellery already declared by the assessee in the valuation report from 1997 to 2006. In view of the above, the addition made by the lower authorities is ordered to be deleted. Assessee appeal allowed. - I.T.A. No. 618/Kol/2021 - - - Dated:- 17-8-2022 - Shri Sanjay Garg , Judicial Member And Shri Girish Agrawal , Accountant Member Shri Sunil Surana , A. R , appeared on behalf of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seized. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer considered the cash in hand by referring to the balance sheet of the assessee, his wife, Smt. Manju Damani, his Daughter-in-law, Ms. Sugandha Damani and his son, Sri Aditya Damani and noted that the aggregate cashin- hand of all family members as per balance sheet was of Rs.86,408/- only. He, therefore, held that the cash amount to that extent stood explained. He added the remaining amount as unexplained income of the assessee. During the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), the assessee contended that part of the cash balance was out of petty savings of the ladies from drawings made. Further, the Assessing Officer has referred to cash balances as on 31.03.2018 instead of 31.03.2019, as the search was conducted on 28.01.2019. The assessee also furnished the balance sheets of all the persons mentioned above as on 31.03.2019. The ld. CIT(A) considering the above submissions of the assessee observed that it would be fair to the assessee cash balance as on 31.03.2019 would be a better indicator of the source of cash, as it is nearer to the date of search, as compared to cash balances as on 31.03.2018. He furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined. Consequently, seizure of these 12 items worth of Rs.36,41,318 was made. During the appellate proceedings before CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the locker was in the joint name of the assessee and his wife and the jewellery/bullion of all the family members consisting of assessee, his spouse, his son, daughter and daughter-in-law was kept in the locker. Total weight of jewellery found was 1035.74 gms. Appellant further submitted that as per CBDT circular dated 11.05.1994, 1650 gms. of jewellery gets explained as source of investment was not required to be explained as 500 gms. of jewellery for his spouse and daughter-in-law each, 250 gms for daughter and 200 gms each for himself and son was covered by the circular. Appellant further submitted that jewellery was very old and was also disclosed under VDIS. 5. However, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the CBDT Circular dated 11.05.1994 only clarifies that the minimum amount of jewellery which should be left in the possession of the assessee and his family members for their personal use. That non-seizure of this minimum quantity did not mean that the assessee was not required to explain the source of investment in such jewe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 14.10.1997 and 31.03.2006. Moreover, as per CBDT Instruction No.1916 dated 12.05.1994, it has been stated that in a case of person not assessed to wealth tax, gold jewellery and ornaments 500 gms. per married lady 250 gms per unmarried lady and 200 gms. per male member of the family, need not be seized. It has been further provide that the authorized officer may having regard to the status of the family and the customs and practices of the community to which the family belongs and other circumstances of the case, decide to exclude a larger quantity of jewellery and ornaments from seizure. Considering the above CBDT Circular, Hon ble Gujarat High court in the case of CIT vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain in Tax Appeal No.661 662 of 2009 decided on 19.07.2010 has observed as under: 10. Though it is true that the CBDT circular No.1916 dated 11.5.1994 lays down guidelines for seizure of jewellery and ornaments in the course of search, the same takes into account the quantity of jewellery which would generally be held by family members of an assessee belonging to an ordinary Hindu household. The approach adopted by the Tribunal in following the said circular and giving benefit to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
