9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom 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 - we allow ground no.1 of grounds of appeal of the assessee. - SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Adv. And Shri Satyajeet Goel, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT-DR ORDER PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M. All these appeals are filed by the Assessee against different orders of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) for the AY 2019-20 in partly upholding the addition made u/s 69A of the Act by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred in short as AO ) in respect of unexplained jewellery found in the course of search. Grounds of appeal read as under: - 1. (i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) was not j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd (In carats) Amount (In Rs. ) Gurpreet Kaur Punihani 4,157 672 1,63,10,439 Bawniet Kaur Punihani 1,626 390 1,51,10,074 Amarjeet Singh Punihani 2,566 359 1,75,15,175 Jaspreet Kaur Punihani 325 69 28,06,294 TOTAL 8,674 1,490 5,17,41,982 3. In the course of assessment proceedings, the AO required the assessees to explain the source of the above jewellery found during search with the documentary evidences. The assessees furnished replies stating that the gold jewllery either have been duly declared in the Wealth-tax returns or where such ornaments are within the prescribed limits of 100, 250, or 500 gms in case of male, female, married, unmarried tax payers respectively who have not filing any tax returns. The assessee contended that as per the CBDT Circular No.1916 dated 11.05.1994 and the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chadha Vs. ITO it was contended that jewellery found to the extent of limits prescribed in the circular are presumed as explained and should either be seized or added in assessments. Assessees also contended that jewellery to the extent of 9.371 kgs belongs to Smt. Jaswant Kaur which was part of her ancestral jewellery and was duly disclosed in her wil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessees. It was also submitted that Ld.CIT(A) has allowed only partial benefit of CBDT Circular No.1916 dated 19.04.1994 in respect of immediate family members only. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the only issue involved in this appeal is regarding the addition u/s 69 of the Act made by the Assessing Officer on the alleged ground of unexplained jewellery found during the course of search proceedings without considering the explanation and documentary evidences furnished during the course of assessment proceedings. 6. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the Assessees are living in a close-knit joint family consisting of around 15 members at Farm House No. F-5, Radhey Mohan Drive, Gadaipur, Mehrauli, New Delhi and having joint business. The Joint family consists of three brothers and their respective families and the jewellery is for common use of family members and kept in the lockers in the name of some of the family members. The family tree of the members is enclosed at page 24 of the paper book. Ld. Counsel submits that at this juncture, it is important to highlight the financial status and background of the Punihani Family in order to appreciate the facts of the case. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ] [Refer Assessment Order of Bawniet kaur Page 22] 1,000 - Total explained Jewellery held by the family members 14,122 1,864 It is submitted that the assessees have duly filed supporting documents in respect of purchase of jewellery and the list of these documents are as under: The copies of jewellery bills are enclsoed at page 48 89 of the paper book. The copies of bank statement reflecting the payments made in respect of jewellery are enclosed at page 90 110 of the paper book. Ld. Counsel with regard to serial no. ii, it is submitted that the CBDT Instruction No.1916 dated 11th May 1994 provides an exemption from seizure of 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. The CIT(A) in total disregard to the instructions issued by the CBDT has failed to provide the benefit of this circular in respect of all the family members. The chart showing the minimum entitlement of each of the family members is enclosed at page 27 of the paper book. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) has duly accepted the fact of the gift of jewellery of 1000 grams received by the appellant from her brother on the occ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re all made from disclosed sources. 11. In light of the above submission, Ld. Counsel submitted that despite of having explained the justification of entire jewellery found as result of search, the lower authorities have considered the issue in an arbitrary and distorted manner. The AO and CIT(A) have not stated the basis for disregarding the purchase bills and non- granting of benefit of limit as per CBDT instruction. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel submits that in the light of the above facts, the jewellery found during the course of search is fully explained and verifiable from the documents placed on record. 12. Further, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions for the proposition that the gold jewellery has to be considered family as a whole. a) Nirmal Kumar Minda Vs. ACIT [ITA No.1151/DEL/2020] [Dt. 03/05/2023] b) Smt. Bommana Swarna Rekha Vs. ACIT ][2005] 94 TTJ 885 (Visakhapatnam) c) Amith Kumar Bethala Vs. DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) (ITA d) G.C. Bafna Vs. DCIT [2004] 90 ITD 115 (Pune) (TM). 13. On the other hand, the Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 14. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities bel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ight of the above observations, let us examine whether the entire jewellery stands explained by the assessees or not. The assessee explained the jewellery found in the following manner: S. No. Particulars Net Gold (in grams) Diamond (in Carats) i. Bills of jewellery purchased by the family members 9,522 1,864 ii. Entitlement as per CBDT Instruction No.1916 3,600 - iii. Gift received by Bawniet Kaur from her brother [Fat accepted by the AO and CIT(A)] 1,000 - [Refer Assessment Order of Bawniet kaur Page 22] Total explained Jewellery held by the family members 14,122 1,864 17. We find that assessee has filed Annexure 4 5 containing purchase bills date wise, assessee wise, quantity wise and mode of payments thereon which are reproduced hereunder: Details of Jewellery Bills along with payment details: - Details of Bills of Jewellery paid through Bank: 18. As could be observed from the above Annexures the assessee was able to explain the jewellery to the extent of 9,522 gms by way of purchase bills and mode of payments thereon. It is 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 expla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
