9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasonable and, thus, no addition under section 69A was called for. Thus in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case and also the jewellery found, the total income declared and in view of the various judgments cited above, we direct that the addition made on this account be deleted. Decided in favour of assessee. - DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Assessee : Sh. Mohit Chaudhary, CA, Sh. Harish Chaudhary, CA, Ms. Neetu Jain, CA For the Revenue : Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT-DR ORDER PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR:- The present appeal has been filed by assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-4, Kanpur dated 27.02.2023. 2. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 27.11.2020 in the premises of M/s. Shiv Shakti Constructions Group of cases and as part of the same action, the premise of the appellant Smt. Preeti Singh was also covered. The case of the appellant was centralized to the jurisdiction of DCIT Central Circle-ll, Noida. Return of income was filed on 28.12.2021 declaring income of Rs. 3,90,510/-. Notice u/s 143(2) of IT Act was issued and served upon the appellant on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee 28 09.2022 to explain the source of jewellery found at his house and locker. 5.1 Vide reply furnished on 24.09.2022 the assessee has stated that the jewelry was gifted to her and her spouse on the occasion of marriage, birth of children etc. and the jewelry pertains to self, wife, mother (expired in 2021), sister, sister-in-law and niece. And the total allowable limit as per CBDT Instruction no. 1916 is mentioned as 3100 grams. 5.2 The reply of the assessee is considered however it is not found tenable. The assessee has included the name of her sister, sister-in-law and niece in her calculation of allowable limit. However, she has not produced any evidence that they reside with her or the jewelry belongs to them. As per the address mentioned in their voter id card, they have a different address. The assessee has also not justified why they should be included in calculating the allowable limit as they were also not residing with her at the time of search. The assessee has also not produced any bills and vouchers and source of purchase in respect of the jewelry found at her premise. 5.3 in view of the facts mentioned above and in light of CBDT Instruction no. 1916 dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 gms, net weight 208.900 gms) was also found from the locker held by the appellant with Punjab National Bank. Thus, total jewellery valuing at Rs 1.20,34,513 (gross weight 3,061.200 gms, net weight 2, 561.782 gms) was found. 5. In the case of Mr Chandra Pal, the Assessing Officer after allowing credit of Rs 51,11,030(1300 gms) on pro rata basis) in light of CBDT Instruction no 1916 dated 11.05.1994 on the subject (refer para 5.3 and 5.4 of the assessment order), made an addition of Rs 69,23,480 under section 69A of the Act re jewellery found at the residential premises. 6. Whereas, in the hands of the appellant, the Assessing Officer made an addition of the value of jewellery found in the locker without giving any credit in accordance with the CBDT Instruction. Thus, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs 9,66,000 section 69A of the Act in the hands of the appellant re jewellery found in the locker. 7. At the outset, the CBDT instruction on the subject is reproduced below for ready reference and record Instances of seizure of jewellery of small quantity in course of operations under section 132 have come to the notice of the Board. The question of a common app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act and hence, the same needs to be deleted. 11. Without prejudice, if the impugned addition is upheld, the appellant submits that the balance credit of 291.100 gms ought to be allowed in respect of jewellery found in the residential premises, the addition of which has been made in the hands of the husband Mr Chandra Pal. It would not be out of place to mention that the Written Submissions re additions made in the hands Mr Chandra Pal are being filed separately in his appeal. 5. In the matter of addition of Rs. 9,66,000/- made u/s 69A of IT Act on account of jewellery, the AO observed that during the course of search conducted at the premise of the assessee at C-8, Flat No. 8787, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, jewellery of Rs. 1,10,68,513/- ( Gross weight 2834 grms) was found. Further in the locker in the name of the assessee i.e. Smt. Preeti Singh in PNB Vasant Vihar, jewellery of Rs. 9,66,000/-( Gross weight 227 gms) was found. Thus, the gross weight of total jewellery of the assessee and her husband was found to be 3061 grams. 6. The AO observes that in the light of CBDT Instruction no. 1916 dated 11.05.1994, the allowable limit of jewellery in case of the assessee and his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Goenka vs. CIT 122 ITR 14 (Cal) Ms. Pooja Shree Chouksey Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 572/lnd/2018 CIT Vs. Kailash Chand Sharma 198 CTR 201 (Raj) Suneela Soni Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 5259/DEL/2017 DCIT Vs. Shri Haroon Mohd. Unni in ITA No.463/M/2012 Susan Suresh Chandra Tilwa Vs. DCIT in ITA No.270/RJT/2015 DCIT, CC-8(3), Mumbai Vs. Shri Manekchand Kothari ITA No. 194/Mum/2018 9. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chaddha vs. Income-tax Officer 14 taxmann.com 57 (Delhi) 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. The operative part of the judgment is reproduced below: 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand relied upon the reasoning given by the authorities below. After considering the aforesaid submissions we are of the view that addition made is totally arbitrary and is not founded on any cogent basis or evidence. We have to keep in mind that the assessee was married for more than 25-30 years. The jewellery in question is not very substantial. The learned counsel for the appellant/assessee is correct in her submission that it is a norm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the IT Act was conducted at the business premises of M/s Best Group and as well as in the residential premise of the Directors on 28.03.2011, in consequence to which the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny. The AO has completed the assessment by making an addition of 30,73,373 on account of unexplained investment in jewellery and addition of Rs. 1.87,082/- on account of unexplained investment in property. The total jewellery found during the course of search was 2531.5 gms, out of which the AO has given assessee the benefit of 950 gms, as per the CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.4.1994 on account of wife and two children of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) in appeal has further allowed the benefit of 600 gms. Of jewellery on account of mother and father of the assessee, holding that the same was allowable to the assessee as per the CBDT Instruction No. 1916, but however, sustained the balance addition made by the AO, vide order dated 22.12.2014 treating the balance jewellery weighting 1050 gms of gold as unexplained. 6.3 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 H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
