TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 556
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) That the ld. CIT failed to consider the reasonableness of jewellery held with the family in the light of Board Circular bearing no. 1916 dated 11-05-1994 and the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Ratanlal Vayapari Lal Jain reported in 339 ITR 351. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal may please to award:- a) Appeal fees deposited while filing the appeal. b) Advocate Fees. c) Incidental Charges. 5. That the petitioner may kindly be permitted to raise any additional or alternative ground at or before the time of hearing. 6. The petitioner prays for justice and relief.'' 2.2 Rival contentions have been heard and records perused. The facts of the case in brief are that there was search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at the residential premises of Shri Ummaid Mal Singhvi on 25-03-2008. During the course of search, certain documents belonging to assessee Smt. Sharmila Singhvi (daughter-in-law of Shri Ummaid Mal Singhvi) were found and seized. The Assessing Officer recorded his satisfaction u/s 153C of the Act. In the assessment framed u/s 153C of the Act, the Assessing Officer observed that dur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure A-1 pg 27 found at the resident of Shri Umed Mai Singhvi the father in law of the assessee shows that he gave gold ornaments weighing 36 tola i.e. 419.904 gm. This fact is also corroborated with the statement of Shri Manoj Singhvi recorded on 25-03-2008 [PB pg 138]. V. That the claim of the ornaments purchased from market weighing 227.01 gm is evidenced with the balance sheet and purchase bill [PB pg 165 to 168]. VI That the claims of gold ornament weighing 146.894 gm belonging to the husband and two minor children is reasonable as per custom. VII That the assessee herself surrendered and offered to tax 652.222 gm valued at Rs.7,14,183/-. In light of above and documentary evidence on record the Id. A.O. erred in making addition of Rs. 707474/- over and above then disclosed by the assessee and as such the addition made by A.O. in respect of gold ornaments amounting to Rs. 7,07,474A may kindly be deleted. " 2.4 By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the credit of 600 gms jewellery i.e. 500 gms for the assessee (married lady) and 100 gms for husband. After giving credit of surrendered jewellery of 652.222 gms, the ld. CIT(A) held that jewellery weighing 1479.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....account the quantity of jewellery which would generally be held by family members of an assessee belonging to an ordinary Hindu Household. The approach adopted by the Tribunal in following the said circular and giving benefit to the assessee, even for explaining the source in respect of the jewellery being held by the family is in consonance with the general practice in Hindu families whereby jewellery is gifted by the relatives and friends at the time of social functions, viz., marriages, birthdays, marriage anniversary and other festivals. These gifts are customary and customs prevailing in a ' society cannot be ignored. Thus although the circular had been issued for the purpose of non-seizure of jewellery during the course of search, the basis for the same recognize customs prevailing in Hindu society. In the circumstances, unless the revenue shows anything to the contrary, it can safely be presumed that the source to the extent of the of jewellery stated in the circular stands explained. Thus, the approach adopted by the Tribunal in considering the extent of jewellery specified under the said circular to be a reasonable quantity, cannot be faulted with. In the circumstances, it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied in giving credit for the ornaments belonging to minor children of the assessee as per Board Circular No. 1916 dated 11-05-1994. It was therefore, contended that due credit for jewellery belonging to minor children should be allowed in addition to what has been allowed by the ld. CIT(A) in respect of the assessee and her husband. 2.6 On the other hand, Shri R.H.Gohel, ld. D.R. appearing on behalf Revenue contended that the assessee was unable to explain the jewellery received from father and father-in-law sides. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in confirming the addition to the extent of unexplained jewellery. He further contended that the assessee was unable to match the jewellery with jewellery so found during the course of search as belonging to the minor children. Accordingly, it was contended that ld. CIT(A) was perfectly justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 3,47,440/-. 2.7 Rival contentions have been considered and records perused. We have also gone through the statements recorded during the course of search. We found that the assessee has tried to explain the jewellery as acquired from father and father-in-law sides. The assessee has also explai....