9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oudhary, CA, Sh. Harish Choudhary, CA and Sh. Mithika Choudhary, Adv. For the Respondent : Sh. T James Singson, 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 Return of income was filed on 29.03.2022 declaring income of Rs. 42,15,110/-. The assessment was completed by making addition of Rs. 59,57,480/- u/s 69A of IT Act on account of unexplained jewellery which has been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us. 3. Except the amount involved the facts of the case or exactly similar to the case of Preeti Singh which was adjudicated by this Tribunal in ITA No. 980/Del/2023 for AY 2021-22. 4. For the sake of ready reference and brevity the order in the case of Preeti Singh (supra) is reproduced here under:- The present appeal has been filed by assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-4, Kanpur dated 27.02.2023. 2. A sea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... weight 2834 grs) was found and in the locker in the name of the assessee Sit. Preeti Singh, maintained with PN Vasant Vihar, jewelry of Rs 9,60,000 - (Gross weight 227 gms) was found. The gross weight of total jewellery is 3061 grams. Vide notice us 142(1) dated 20.01.2022 and 25.08.2022 the assessee was asked to furnish the source of jewellery. However, no details in this regard were furnished. In order to follow the principles of natural justice a show cause notice was issued to assessee 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 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, Messrs Shiv Shakti Constructions (the firm). 3. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 27.11.2020 at the premises of Messers Shiv Shakti Construction. The residential premises of Mr Chandra Pal and the appellant was also covered in the search operations. 4. During the search operations, jewellery valuing at Rs 1.10,68,513 (gross weight 2834.100 gms, net weight 2.352.882 gms) was found at the residential premises of the Mr Chandra Pal and the appellant. Further, jewellery valuing at Rs 9,66,789 (gross weight 227.100 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 appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that the Assessing Officer ought to have considered the net weight. 10. Without prejudice to the above, the appellant further, contends that the Assessing Officer ought to have given credit based on the CBDT Instruction to the appellant and not to her husband Mr Chandra Pal. Net weight of jewellery found in the locker is 208.900 gms and once the credit of 500 gms Is allowed, the appellant is still left with a buffer of 291.100 gms. In view of the above, the appellant submits that the Assessing Officer ought not to have made the impugned addition of Rs 9,66,000under section 69A of the 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 jewel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,52,157.00 2020-21 8,48,060.00 2021-22 3,90,510.00 2022-23 4,90,970.00 8. The assessee stated that the income for all the years 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. Reliance is being placed upon following decisions: Ashok Chaddha vs. ITO, 14 taxmann.com 57 (Delhi) Vibhu Aggarwal vs. DCIT, 93 taxmann.com 275 (Delhi - Trib.) Tara Devi 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 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 result, Assessee s appeal is allowed. 10. The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Vibhu Aggarwal vs. DCIT 93 taxmann.com 275 (Delhi - Trib.) held that where Assessing Officer under section 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. The operative part of the judgment is reproduced below: 2. The brief facts of the case are that a search seizure operation under section 132 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 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
