Appeal allowed on jewellery investment assessment, emphasizing CBDT guidelines and need for thorough enquiries.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, emphasizing the importance of following CBDT guidelines, conducting thorough enquiries, and considering supporting evidence in assessments related to jewellery investments. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to give full benefit of the circular and delete the addition, highlighting the need for proper enquiry and consideration of familial arrangements regarding jewellery ownership.

---

---

Issues:
1. Justification of order by CIT(A)-III, Bhopal
2. Consideration of CBDT Instruction No.1916
3. Assessment of investment in jewellery
4. Submission of supporting evidence before authorities
5. Application of CBDT circular in assessment

1. Justification of order by CIT(A)-III, Bhopal:
The appeal by the assessee was directed against the order of CIT(A)-III, Bhopal dated 13.9.2017 pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee included challenging the justification of the order by CIT(A)-III, Bhopal as being beyond the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Consideration of CBDT Instruction No.1916:
The issue revolved around the erred passing of the order by CIT(A)-III under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The dispute arose from the proportionate allowance of gold jewellery and ornaments weighing 700 grams while disallowing the remaining 266.5 grams. The appellant argued for the consideration of CBDT Instruction No.1916, which prescribes limits for gold jewellery and ornaments based on gender and marital status within the family.

3. Assessment of investment in jewellery:
The assessment of investment in jewellery was conducted following a search & seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at residential and business premises associated with Regal Homes and Dwarkadheesh Haveli Builders Group. The assessment resulted in an addition of &8377;24,52,309/- on account of investment in jewellery, which was partially deleted by the CIT(A) and sustained to the extent of 266 grams.

4. Submission of supporting evidence before authorities:
The assessee submitted detailed explanations during the assessment proceedings, including the source and ownership of the jewellery found during the search operation. However, the Assessing Officer rejected these submissions due to lack of documentary evidence, non-filing of returns, and failure to prove the acquisition of jewellery through accounted income or gifts. The rejection was based on the absence of bills, vouchers, and supporting documents.

5. Application of CBDT circular in assessment:
The application of the CBDT circular was crucial in determining the quantum of jewellery found during the search operation. The CIT(A) provided benefit to the extent of 700 grams based on the circular guidelines, but failed to conduct further enquiries or consider evidence related to the ownership and acquisition of jewellery by other family members. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to give full benefit of the circular and delete the addition, emphasizing the need for proper enquiry and consideration of familial arrangements regarding jewellery ownership.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, highlighting the importance of following CBDT guidelines, conducting thorough enquiries, and considering supporting evidence in assessments related to jewellery investments.

---