9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y adverse material or evidence in support of the allegation that jewellery so found was acquired or purchased in the year under reference, the invocation of provisions of section 69A and consequential addition without even considering the status of the family is highly arbitrary and misconceived. (iii) That the Appellant being part of a joint family and total jewellery of the family found during the course of search being for common use and acquired from common pool of funds is fully supported from documentary evidences in the form of bills/invoices/will and other corroborative and circumstantial evidences, the impugned addition u/s 69A is improper and unjustified. (iv) That the source of jewellery found and seized during the search being fully explained and same being accumulated in considerable period of time on account of self-acquisition, gifts, ancestral jewellery and streedhan; there is no case of any unexplained jewellery in terms of section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That in any case, the valuation of jewellery so found being highly excessive and irrational and appellant having objected to the same, the addition of Rs. 1,31,30,074/- is unreasonable and wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as can be verified from the facts that Smt. Bawniet Kaur received gifts in the form of jewellery on the occasion of her marriage from various members of her family. It was also submitted that in the course of search as a matter of fact that gift deed was found which evidenced that 1 kg of gold jewellery was received from her brother Shri Guneet Singh on the occasion of her marriage. It was also contended that Smt. Gurpreet Kaur has been married for about 32 years Smt. Avniet Kaur has been married for about 28 years and Smt. Jaspreet Kaur has been married for about 25 years and have accumulated jewellery over their married life. Therefore, it was contended that jewellery accumulated by a lady over her married life even if in excess of limits prescribed under Instruction No.1916 cannot be added as undisclosed investment for which the assessees have relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chadha Vs. ITO 20 taxmann.com 387 and Sushila Devi Vs. CIT (WP No.7620/2011). Not convinced with the submissions of the assessee the AO made additions u/s 69 of the Act as referred to in the table above. 4. The assessees preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss family enjoys a special status in the society. The family members are declaring decent income in the ITR and the income chart of the family is extracted at page 13 to 15 of the CIT(A) order. It is submitted that it is trite law that the reasonableness of the jewellery and valuable things found in the search is to be seen keeping in mind the financial position and social status of the family. 7. Ld. Counsel submits that the search party during the course of search conducted at various premises along with bank lockers found aggregate jewellery weighing 15,607.32 grams of gold and 1690.82 carats of diamonds. As per the panchnama, the jewellery so found is identified amongst the family members as under. The copies of valuation reports prepared at the time of search are enclosed at page 28 - 47 of the paper book: Name of Assessee Gold Diamond (Net value in grams) (Net value in Carats) Shri. Tarlok Singh 1,280.86 17.86 Smt. Gurpreet Kaur 6,399.68 770.55 Smt. Bawniet Kaur 2,625.78 389.80 Shri Narinder Singh 193.00 22.00 Shri Amarjeet Singh 3,346.55 382.71 Smt. Jaspreet Kaur 1,105.65 92.90 TOTAL 14,952.00 1,676.00 It is submitted that the aggregate jewellery ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant from her brother on the occasion of her marriage. The factual position to this effect is also substantiated from the Gift Deed which was found and seized during the course of search and was marked at page 88 of Annexure 4 by team AP-4 of the search party. 9. The table showing jewellery found and that explained by the Appellant is as under: Particulars Net Gold (in grams) Diamond (in Carats) Total jewellery found during search [As per Pachnama] 14,952 1,676 Less: Jewellery explained by the Appellant 14,122 1,864 Balance short/excess jewellery 830 -188 Rates applied by the Department Valuer @Rs.3300 per gram @Rs.25,000 per carat Value of Short/ExcessJewellery 27,39,000 -47,00,000 From the above details, it is self-evident that there is no case of any excess jewellery and the entire jewellery is duly supported from meritorious explanation. It may be appreciated that as against aggregate jewellery of 14,952 grams of gold and 1,676 carats of diamonds found during the search, the appellant has explained the existence of jewellery weighing 14,122 grams of gold and 1,864 Ct. of diamonds. In fact, part of diamond jewellery was converted to gold jewellery. This posi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the evidences furnished before us. 15. The main plank of arguments of the Ld. Counsel is that all the family members of the Punihani are joint family members and, therefore, should be considered as one single unit. On perusal of the statements recorded from the family members of the assessees during search the family members have deposed that the jewellery found were either belonging to them or to their family members/relatives. This shows that all the family members comprising of 14 persons are from joint family staying together. We further observed that sister-in-law of Smt. Gurpreet Kaur who is an NRI occasionally coming to India also stays with them and her jewellery was also found in the lockers of the family members of the assessees. In the circumstances, the contentions of the assessee that the entire family of 14 persons should be considered as one single unit has got lot of force and deserves to be accepted. This view of ours is further fortified by the Third Member decision of the Pune Bench in the case of GC Bafna Vs. DCIT (19 ITD 115), wherein it has been held as under: "32. We have considered t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not the case of the Revenue that assessee has made payments in cash for purchase of jewellery out of undisclosed sources of income. Further assessees explanation that they have converted diamonds partly to gold jewellery is a plausible explanation which cannot be brushed aside as it is the usual custom and practice of the household ladies to do so. 19. Considering the overall family status and community of the assessees holding of jewellery of 9,522 gms which is also supported by purchase bills stands clearly explained. As could be seen from the above table there is excess diamonds to the extent of 188 carats (valued at Rs. -47,00,000/-) and there is a deficit in gold jewellery to the extent of 830 gms (valued at Rs. 27,39,000/-) and this could be for the reason that the assessee converted diamonds partly to jewellery which is a plausible explanation. If this explanation is accepted and set off the excess diamond against deficit in gold is considered, there is no addition that would be warranted u/s 69A of the Act. In view of what is discussed above, we allow ground no.1 of grounds of appeal of the assessee. As we have allowed ground no.1 of grounds of appeal of the assessee, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
