TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1356
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed and treated remaining 2444.25 gms. as unexplained. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 30,55,132/- was made. 4. On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the addition with the following findings: "6.3 I have carefully considered the Assessment Order, findings of Assessing Officer and the submission of the Appellant. It is observed by assessing officer, that during the course of search, total gold jewellery 4444.25 gms were found. The Assessing officer has treated only 400 gms per married lady as explained gold and allowed credit for 2000 gms considering 5 married lady and he has not allowed any credit for other members of family It is found from the records of appellant that search was conducted at both the premises being bungalow no 1 & 28 of Gautamnagar Co Operative Housing Society wherein appellant along with his family members are living. It is further found that gold jewellery found during the course of search for 4,444.25 gms. includes gold found from residential premises of appellant's family as well as locker No. 466,76, 77, 78 and 641 with Mehsana Urban Co-operative Bank Limited which are in the name of family members of appellant. It is observed from the panchnamas prepare....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and these facts prove that gold found during the course of search not only belongs to appellant only but belongs to all the family members of appellant referred supra. As per CBDT instruction no 1916 dated 11th may 1994 gold ornaments to the extent of 500 gm for married lady member, 250 gms for unmarried lady and 100 gms for male members is required to be considered as explained jewellery. This circular is explained by Hon'ble Ahmedabad I.T.A.T. in case of Kishorbhai V Sakaria , Rameshchandra R Patel 89 ITD 203 and Manila! S Dave 117 Taxman 23 referred supra wherein it has been explicitly held that though board circular is a guideline for not effecting seizure during the course of search, extended meaning of same shows the intention that the jewellery to the extent mentioned in such circular should be treated as explained jewellery and gold found to that extent for family members cannot be treated as unexplained in the hand of appellant. It is found from the details that gold found during the course of search belongs to all the family members of appellant who are living together as stated in preceding paras; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e grounds are inter-related, they are being considered and decided together. 9. The facts of the case are that during course of search of the assessee's premises, certain papers were found and seized. As per Assessing Officer, those papers show loan of Rs. 76,30,240/- given by the assessee. The assessee has made a disclosure of Rs. 70 lacs as unaccounted income from sarafi business. The Assessing Officer made addition for the difference i.e. Rs. 6,30,240/-. 10. On appeal, the CIT(A) sustained the addition at Rs. 1,30,240/- with the following finding: "4.2 I have carefully considered the Assessment .Order, findings of Assessing Officer and the submission of the Appellant. The assessing officer has made addition of Rs. 6,30,240 mainly on the ground that seized data found during the course of search shows total credit given to various parties not accounted in books of account as Rs. 76,30,240 whereas appellant has disclosed only Rs. 70 lacs in return of income. The appellant has explained that seized data contain both receipt and payment hence entire payment cannot be taxed. It was also explained by appellant that as he is engaged in sarafi business which involve lending of m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der of CIT(A). He has recorded the finding that the assessee has made another disclosure of Rs. 5 lacs in respect of unaccounted payment to brokers. Those payments are also recorded in the same seized pages and were part of the total payments made by the assessee at Rs. 76,30,540/-. Therefore, he reduced the addition to the extent of Rs. 5 lacs. This factual finding recorded by CIT(A) has not been controverted before us. We, therefore, find no justification with the finding of the CIT(A) in this regard. Accordingly, ground no.2 of the Revenue's appeal and the only ground of assessee's Cross Objection are rejected. 13. Ground no.3 of the Revenue's appeal reads as under: "3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing to delete the addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- made on account of unaccounted investment in commodity trading." 14. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed before us. The Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- on the ground that in the statement of Shri Ashwin J Patel he has given the payment of Rs. 7,50,000/- in respect of commodity trading. However, assessee made surrender of only Rs. 5 lacs in this regard. Theref....