9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on the facts of the case, in law and under the circumstances, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)4, Kanpur erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer to make an addition of Rs. 20,44,870/- (1/3rd of Rs. 61,34,610/- treated as unexplained jewellery) to the income of the appellant in respect of the alleged unexplained gold ornaments found at the time of search by invoking the provisions of section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act. The addition confirmed is unjustified and bad in law. 2. That on the facts of the case, in law and under the circumstances, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)4, Kanpur erred to confirm the action of the assessing officer to make an addition of Rs. 20,44,870/- by invoking the provisions of section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act by ignoring the plea that jewellery belonging to the daughter is also kept in the house. The addition confirmed by Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-4, Kanpur is unjustified, unwarranted based on surmises, conjectures, and is bad in law. 3. That on the facts and in law and under the circumstances, the issue of the penalty notice under section 271AAB and also the interest charged un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l (Wife) 500 GMS 7. Kiaara Sharma (Daughter) 250 GMS 8. Advay Sharma (Nephew) 100 GMS 9. Adyant Sharma (Nephew) 100 GMS Total 2250 GMS The remaining gold jewellery of 1627.5 Grams amounting to Rs. 61,34,610/- remains unexplained. Therefore, considering the facts of the case and CBDT's instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994 and press release dated 01.12.2016, the remaining jewellery of 1627.5 GMS for the total value of Rs. 61,34,610/- (as on date of search) is treated as unexplained jewellery. The amount of Rs. 20,44,870/- (1/3 share) is added to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The remaining amount is added in the income of Sh. Ganga Saran Sharma, father of assessee and Sh. Ankur Sharma, Brother of assessee. 4. Proceedings before the ld. CIT(A): Before the ld. CIT(A), the appellant submitted that it had been explained that the major amount of gold ornaments were inherited by Shri Ganga Saran Sharma on the death of his mother, besides Shri Ganga Saran Sharma was married in equally rich and business class family and received gold jewellery in marriage. Subsequently, both the sons namely Shri Ankur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BDT Instruction No. 1916 dt. 11.05.1994 pertaining to all male and female members of the family and has been reasonable enough to add only 1627.5 grms jewellery valuing Rs. 61,34,610/- and divided the same in the hands of main family members i.e. the appellant, his father and brother. The ld. CIT(A) held that with regard to the jewellery belonging to daughter of Smt. Shashi Sharma i.e. the sister of the appellant, the appellant could not furnish the requisite evidence, which may conclusively prove that the jewellery belonging to his sister was also kept in the residential premise of the appellant. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that this submission as an afterthought and since the same was held to be devoid of merit, the arguments of the assessee were summarily dismissed. In effect, the order of the AO has been confirmed. 5. The addition of Rs. 61,34,610/- has been made in the hands of Sh. Ganga Saran Sharma, the patriarch of the family and the siblings Sh. Ankit Sharma and Sh. Ankur Sharma at the rate of 33.33% each. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 7. During the hearing before us, the ld. AR relied on the submissions and the arguments tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 normal custom for woman to receive jewellery in the form of stree dhan 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 . Matt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 High Court of Delhi in the case of Ashok Chaddha (Supra) of Sushila Devi (supra) and the IT AT Delhi decision in the case of Suneela Soni (supra), 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 partly confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of balance jewellery weighting 1050 gms of gold as unexplained is hereby del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
