9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and diamond jewellery as on 03.08.2009 of a value of Rs.11,88,206/- was also filed by the assessee. It is also seen that the assessee has given details of the income declared by her over a period of 16 years and the income declared is to the tune of Rs.4.78 Crores. Considering the status of the family and other surrounding circumstances including the statement of evidence given by the assessee, the possession of jewellery worth Rs.28.54 lakhs have to be accepted. Admittedly, the jewellery was purchased in the year 2009 and this evidence has been completely ignored by the Revenue authorities. All the facts cumulatively considered, proves the credit worthiness of the assessee to buy the jewellery out of the taxed incomes. Hence, even by the process of telescoping the income with the source of acquiring jewellery, the explanation of the assessee needs to be accepted. The impugned addition made by the Revenue authorities cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is directed to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.833/Bang/2022 - - - Dated:- 3-2-2023 - Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President For the Assessee : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate For the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the department, 1 hereby offer the above amount of Rs. 28,63,136/- as my undisclosed income for the current year. 3. The bills for purchase of gold and diamond jewellery were furnished by the assessee in the course of search. Copies of those bills are at page Nos.35 to 37 of the assessee s Paper Book. Purchase of jewellery (gold and diamond) as on 03.08.2009 and the value of jewellery as on 03.08.2009 was Rs.11,88,206/-. 4. In the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that as declared by the assessee s husband in reply to question No.41 of the statement recorded at the time of search of offering a sum of Rs.28,63,136/- as undisclosed income on account of investment in jewellery, there was no declaration in the return of income filed in response to the notice issued under section 153C of the Act. 5. The assessee submitted the reasons why such a declaration was not made in the return of income by pointing out that as per your valuation report, the jewellery of 1183.126 grams of gold and 32.47 carats of precious stones is estimated as Rs. 45,67,811 as per prevalent rates as on 17.08.2017, which includes gold and diamonds purchased from VASUNDARA EXOTIC JEWELL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring marriage ceremony on 02.11.1996 and 240.37 grams of jewellery was received as gifts from parents. The assessee could not produce any documents supporting her claim. Even in the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee could not offer any explanation about the source of acquisition of the said jewellery or documents to show that the same was received as gift by her. In so far as CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994 is concerned, the AO held that the said instruction was issued to fix a reasonable limit of holding of jewellery by a family and seizure of the jewellery above that limit during search proceedings. But if the assessee is not able to explain the source of acquisition of jewellery, then the investment becomes unexplained. According to the AO, total jewellery of 1358.06 grams of gold and 32.47 carats of diamond jewellery was found. The assessee has shown jewellery of Rs.10,94,952/- in her balance sheet. Thus, the balance jewellery worth Rs.34,72,859/- is unexplained. The AO therefore held that the jewellery of Rs.28,63,136/- as admitted by assessee during search proceedings has to be treated as her unexplained investment u/s 69 of Act and Tax on the amount o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gard to seizure and cannot be extended to the explanation of the source of jewellery. The CIT(A) also held that the assessee failed to bring on evidence to show the jewellery was acquired by her at the time of marriage. The CIT(A) accordingly confirmed the order of the AO. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. I have heard the rival submissions. Learned Counsel for the assessee reiterated stand of the assessee as put forth before the Revenue Authorities. Learned DR relied on the order of the CIT(A). 10. The impugned addition is made under section 69 of the Act. The burden under section 69 of the Act that lies on the assessee is to give satisfactory explanation with regard to the investment made in jewellery. What is satisfactory explanation will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The standard of proof required cannot be equal to proof on preponderance of probability as is required in judicial proceedings. In this background it is seen that the search was conducted in the case of the assessee s husband. In the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, the husband of the assessee admitted that the jewe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
