9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 774X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mt. Surekha Singh. Keeping in mind, the overall status of the family as demonstrable from the facts of records, whole of the gold ornaments found at the time of search requires to be treated as clearly explained. We refer to the observations made in the case of Ashok Chaddha [ 2011 (7) TMI 142 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein collecting jewellery above the limit prescribed in the instruction, in a married life of 25 to 30 years, was not treated as abnormal. The normal custom of Indian society and realities of life were taken into account by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court. The additions made u/s 69A towards gold ornaments are at odds with the decision rendered by the Jurisdictional High Court in Ashok Chhadha (supra) therefore cannot be countenanced. We thus set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made under Section 69A of the Act on this score. Assessee appeal allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f jewellery as explained. The remaining amount of Rs. 44,32,030 /- was thus treated as unexplained as the assessee has failed to furnish any bills/vouchers or source of purchase of jewellery. The income returned at Rs. 85,93,170 /- was thus assessed at Rs. 1,30,25,200/-. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) also affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer and declined to interfere with the additions carried out towards unexplained jewellery. 8. Further aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities as well as material available on record. 10. The additions on account of unexplained jewellery being 1179.10 gms valued at Rs. 44,32,030/- is subject matter of controversy. As pointed out on behalf of the assessee, total jewellery found during the search stands at 2479.10 gms. The Assessing Officer has accepted 1300 gms as attributable to different family members tabulated in the earlier paragraphs as explained. However, the remaining jewellery being 1179.10 gms has been treated as unexplained on the ground that 514 gms and 250.400 gms stated to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... struction No. 1994 dated 11.05.1994 is reproduced hereunder for immediate reference: " Instances of seizure of jewellery of small quantity in the course of operation under section 132 have come to the notice of the Board. The question of a common approach to situation where search parties come across items of jewellery has been examined by the Board and following guidelines are issued for strict compliance. (i) ) In the case of a wealth- tax assessee, gold jewellery and ornaments found in excess of the gross weight declared in the wealth-tax return only need to be seized. (ii) ) In the case of a person not assessed to wealth- tax gold jewellery and ornaments to the extent of 500 gms. per married lady 250 gms per unmarried lady and 100 gms. per male member of the family, need not be seized. (iii) ) The authorized officer may having regard to the status of the family and the customs and practices of the community to which the family belongs and other circumstances of the case, decide to exclude a larger quantity of jewellery and ornaments from seizure. This should be reported to the Director of Income- tax/Commissioner authorising the search all the time of furnishing th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l status of the family as demonstrable from the facts of records, whole of the gold ornaments found at the time of search requires to be treated as clearly explained. 15. At this juncture, we refer to the observations made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chaddha vs. ITO (2011 ) 14 taxmann.com 57 (Del) wherein collecting jewellery above the limit prescribed in the instruction, in a married life of 25 to 30 years, was not treated as abnormal.The normal custom of Indian society and realities of life were taken into account by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder for ready reference. " As far as addition qua jewellery is concerned, during the course of search, jewellery weighing 906 .900 grams of the value amounting to Rs. 6,93,582 was found. The appellant' s explanation was that he was married about 25 years back and the jewellery comprised " streedhan" of Smt. Jyoti Chadha, his wife and other small Items jewellery subsequently purchased and accumulated over the years. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the above explanation on the ground that documentary evidence regarding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssions 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 normal custom for woman to receive jewellery in the form of " streedhan" or on other occasions such as birth of a child etc. Collecting jewellery of 906.900 grams by a woman in a married life of 25 -30 years is not abnormal. Furthermore, 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 ." 16. A reference is also made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
