9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1056X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HAT:- We hold that CBDT's instruction no. 1916 dated 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 assessee stated that the income for all the years had fallen into the highest tax bracket which shows that the assessee has been earning substantial Income clearly establishing the status. It has time and again been held that due credit of the same has to be allowed by the Assessing Officer looking and appreciating the status, customs, and traditions relating to the family. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chaddha [ 2011 (7) TMI 142 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] held 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appreciate that the learned Assessing Officer had accepted the gold portion of the jewellery found during the search but failed to accept the value of the diamonds/ precious/ semi-precious stones embedded in them. 5. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further failed to appreciate that there is not even an iota of evidence that the assessee had invested in the said jewellery out of unexplained sources, and thus, in absence of which no addition could be made u/s 69B of the Income Tax Act. 6. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming an addition of Rs. 4,49,750 made by the assessing officer being share of the cash found from the Joint locker of the assessee, with total disregard to the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in not appreciating that the assessee belonged to the ALP group of industries and belonged to a reputed upper strata family. The said cash, inter alia, included the various shaguns received on various occasions from family members/ relatives. 3. In ITA No. 60/Del/2022, following grounds have been raised by the Revenue: 1. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Income Tax Act, 1961 on substantive basis. 6. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 8. During the hearing, the ld. AR reiterated the arguments taken up before the ld. CIT(A). It was argued that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4,49,750/- for cash found in the Locker No. L-953, without appreciating the fact that the cash was partly withdrawn from various banks and partly gifts received from relatives on different occasions and pin money. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee belongs to the ALP group of industries which is a reputed name in the market. The assessee belongs to the upper higher strata of the society and it is very common for the assessee and her family to receive gifts in the shape of cash shaguns on various occasions such as marriages, birthdays, anniversaries, birth of a child, auspicious festivals and other such occasions. The Ld. AR argued that pin money/Kitty which is very common to be received from the spouse in every family. The assessee's financial status has been substantiated in the shape of returns of income filed by her for the past six years. The total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h of Rs. 8,99,500/- was found seized from the said locker No. L-953. From perusal of bank statement of the assessee, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee did not withdraw any cash from any of its bank accounts. In absence of any justification or documentary evidence regarding source of cash found in the locker no. L-953 was treated as unexplained money and added to the total income of the assessee as per the section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since, the locker No. L-953 was jointly hold by Smt. Jasmine Anand and Smt. Jaswinder Kaur Anand, the cash of Rs. 8,99,500/- was distributed equally between both the account holders and an amount of Rs. 4,49,750/- being 50% of total cash found and seized was added to the total income of the assessee on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on substantive basis. Jewellery: 15. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.25,78,237/- on account of difference in the jewellery and Rs.16,082/- on account of unexplained bullion on protective basis, Rs.82,43,262/- on account of jewellery on protective basis and Rs.78,69,870/- on account of value of solitaire ring in addition to the unexplained cash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 assessee has a returned income in the range of Rs.31 lacs to Rs.42 lacs as per the returns. 22. The statement showing the incomes of the assessee is as under: Assessment Year Taxable Income Exempt Income Original ITR Acknowledgment no. 2012-2013 31,10,400.00 1,00,000.00 477884970310812 2013-2014 36,28,890.00 1,00,000.00 6878488100270713 2014-2015 37,93,410.00 1,10,000.00 27722736029-714 2015-2016 38,10,120.00 1,50,000.00 740184810290815 2016-2017 39,20,520.00 1,50,000.00 323035030280716 2017-2018 42,96,020.00 3,24,000.00 922302630250717 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar 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. 25. 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 Ashok Chadha vs. ITO reported in 14 taxmann.com 57 (Delhi.)/202 Taxman 395, the explanation given by the assessee s counsel is accepted. Accordingly the orders of the authorities below are cancelled and addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) amounting to Rs. 10,65,312/- on account of purported unexplained Jewellery claimed by the assessee is deleted. 7. In the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s received, bills produced, and in view of the various judgments cited above, we direct that the addition made on account of jewellery be deleted. 28. In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this issue is allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed. Solitaire Ring: 29. The AO made addition of Rs.78,69,874/- on account of value of solitaire ring. 30. Before us, the ld. DR reiterated the arguments taken up by the Assessing Officer while making the addition. The ld. AR reiterated the arguments taken up before the ld. CIT(A). 31. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 32. The facts are as under: The assessee has submitted the bill dated 04.05.2017 showing purchase of 7.01 cts. of diamonds worth Rs.26,68,420/- from Naulakha Jewellers. The assessee has made payments through ICICI Bank for Rs.26,68,420/- in three installments from 28.02.2017, 16.05.2017 and 14.08.2017. The valuer Sh. Kailash Chauhan valued the ring at Rs.1,05,38,300/- on 12.01.2018, the date of search. The valuer determined diamonds of 7.01 cts. and gross weight of 8.55 gms. 33. Hence, it can be considered that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
