9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1837X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant's Brother's Son's Wife) by treating only 100 Gms. as customary by not considering that the excess alleged unexplained jewellery found at the time of search has been received at marriage and other festivals as a part of Indian Traditions. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the weight of the gold jewellery belonging to Mrs. Nisha M. Mehta is only 370 Gms. which is below 500 Gms. and which as per CBDT Instructions cannot be seized. 4. Further also considering the above facts, so called excess jewellery was returned by the officer in charge at the time of search after due verification and thus no contrary view could be taken by the Assessing Officer. 5. That the addition as above has been made against the facts and circumstances of the case and detailed submissions filed during the course of hearing before CIT(A) and Assessing Officer has not been considered properly. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income for Assessment Year 2016-17 on 03.12.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 4,38,910/-. The assessee is one of the family members of Rajputana group. A search action under section 132 was carried out in Rajputana group on 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u to decide in the matter. The regarding diamond found and seized is 23.747 but the assessee is showing in return of wealth is 27.1 ct. It is a declared in the Income Tax. So it should be accepted." 4. The reply of assessee was summarized by Assessing Officer in the following manner: Name Gold Diamond Baghuben B. Mehta (wife) 1143.30 27.1 ct. Babulal D Mehta (self) 84.30 0 Girish B Mehta (son) 65.00 0 Nisha M Mehta (daughter) 370.10 2.48 ct. Total 1662.7 29.58 Total Found 1703.00 23.747 ct. 5. The Assessing Officer on the basis of reply furnished by assessee and considering the documentary evidences furnished concluded that gold ornaments claimed by male members are treated as explained, however, in case of Nisha Mehta only 100 gram was treated as customary and explained and remaining 270 gram was treated as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the action of Assessing Officer was upheld. Further, aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us. 6. We have heard the submission of ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee and ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the revenue and perused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Narain Patni (supra). we have seen that the coordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in Ashok Jain Vs ACIT (supra) by following the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Satya Narain Patni (supra) on similar set of facts passed the following order: 8. We have considered the rival stands and find that so far as the factual aspect is concerned, the total jewellery found at the time of search was 580.900 gms, as noted by the CIT(A) in para 8.4.1 of the order. In so far as the addition of Rs. 24,43,218/- is concerned, same is the value of jewellery as well as other valuables including silver utensils, which have been found at the time of search, and is supported by the valuation report dated 12.10.2011 by the government approved valuer, copy of which has been furnished in the Paper Book filed by the assessee. Pertinently the plea of the assessee before us is confined to the treatment of 580.900 gms of gold jewellery as unexplained at the time of search. The assessee has sought to explain the same by pointing out that the same is within the permissible limits stipulated by the CBDT circular dated 11.05.1994 (supra). Factually speaking, the assertion of the assessee that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts made by both the sides and perused the orders of the authorities below. It is an admitted fact that during the course of search, jewellery (Net Weight) 313.600 grams was found at Locker no.520, Bank of India, Patparganj, Delhi. Since the assessee could not explain the source of such jewellery, the Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs.8,93,760/- as undisclosed investment in jewellery. It is the submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee that he and his wife have received the above jewellery at the time of marriage. It is also his submission that since the above gold jewellery is less than 500 grams, therefore, in view of the CBDT Circular No.19 of 2016 and various decisions, no addition should be made. I find some 4 ITA No.3733/Del/2017 force in the above argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mrs. Komal Wazir vs. DCIT reported in 120 DTR 353 has held that in the normal course of human conduct, on occasions such as marriage the parents and parents-inlaw of a bride do normally gift jewellery to the bride. It is not possible to expect the bride to ask for evidence of bills/invoices to support the purchase of the jewellery ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
