9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 653X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mily standard, a persons of an Income Tax payee of considerable amount could have had the prescribed amount of jewellery in the circular. It was brought into force after a series of due deliberation and its impact on taxation. It is never envisaged that the Assessing Authority should restrict the amount of eligible jewellery to the quantity mentioned in the circular. The assesses were trustee of a medical college and also have the returned income in the range of Rs. 21.27 lacs to 49.34 lacs as per the returns. As decided in the case of Ashok Chaddha [ 2011 (7) TMI 142 - DELHI HIGH COURT] that collecting jewellery of 906.900 gms by a woman in a married life of 25 years in form of stree dhan or on other occasions is not abnormal. As decided in the case of Vibhu Aggarwal [ 2018 (5) TMI 586 - ITAT DELHI] where AO u/s 69A made addition on account of jewellery found in search of assessee, since assessee belonged to a wealthy family and jewellery was received on occasions from relatives, excess jewellery was very much reasonable and, thus, no addition under section 69A was called for. Thus we direct that the addition made on this account be deleted. Appeal of assessee allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red to explain the above cash, along with supporting documents and was also required to explain the source of the above cash, along with supporting documents. However no reply was received. Hence, the assessee, vide show cause notice dated 23.02.2021, was specifically required to explain the above said cash, along with documentary evidences and was required to explain the sources of the above said cash, along with documentary evidences. In response to the show cause, the AR of the assessee vide reply furnished on 06.08.2021, has stated that the jewellery has been inherited and received in marriages of the family members. However, the source of jewellery has not been properly explained by the assessee. In order to follow principles of natural justice, the CBDT's instruction no. 1916 dated 11/05/1994 and press release dated 01/12/2016 regarding the eligible amount of jewellery that can be kept by the family members is applied. The family of the assessee consists of the following members who are eligible to claim benefit of above said jewellery to the extent of limit as prescribed in the above said circular. Sl. No. Name of the family member ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amily is in the business since generations and doing good business, besides the family has established a charitable Hospital. That proves the financial status of the family. It was further submitted that house-ladies are further very systematic and intelligent enough to make savings from the money received by them for managing house hold. The house-ladies spend money with a tight hand and whatever they save, it is invested by them very wisely in buying gold items and/or cloths. The AR submits that the appellant and his family members have good financial status and there are total net drawings of more than 13.50 crores during the period of nine years and the small value of jewellery found during search stands fully covered and very well explained being merely of the total value of Rs. 1,46,15,635/- and as such, no part of the jewellery be treated as unexplained. After going through the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) held that the appellant has relied on withdrawals of various family members in last 10 years but only withdrawals cannot explain the use of the cash in purchase of jewellery. Complete analysis of withdrawals as well as deposits of cash in various bank acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 11.05.1994 and press release dated 01.12.2016 pertains to seizure of jewellery. It postulates that by going through the archetypal Indian family standard, a persons of an Income Tax payee of considerable amount could have had the prescribed amount of jewellery in the circular. It was brought into force after a series of due deliberation and its impact on taxation. It is never envisaged that the Assessing Authority should restrict the amount of eligible jewellery to the quantity mentioned in the circular. The assesses were trustee of a medical college and also have the returned income in the range of Rs. 21.27 lacs to 49.34 lacs as per the returns. 10. The statement showing the incomes of the assesses is as under: Name AY 20-21 AY 19-20 AY 18-19 AY 17-18 AY 16-17 AY 15-16 Ganga Saran Sharma 64,85,556 49,44,669 46,68,812 44,59,800 37,43,180 35,00,511 Ankit Sharma 22,92,434 23,08,783 24,27,493 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rthermore, there was no valid and/or proper yardstick adopted by the Assessing Officer to treat only 400 grams as reasonable allowance and treat the other as unexplained . Matter would have been different if the quantum and value of the jewellery found was substantial. 4. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the findings of the Tribunal are totally perverse and far from the realities of life. In the peculiar facts of this case we answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue thereby deleting the aforesaid addition of Rs. 3,87,364. 13. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Suneela Soni Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 5259/DEL/2017 held as follows: 6.1 After perusing the aforesaid decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court, I am of the considered view that facts and circumstances of the present case are similar to the aforesaid decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court and hence, the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. 6.2 Keeping in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the status of the family and on the anvil of the judgement of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Ash ok Chadha v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
