2016 (1) TMI 1070

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rounds of appeal: "1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 14,32,922 made on account of unexplained jewellery out of the jewellery found at the time of search. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the facts of the case are clearly distinguishable from that of the cases relied upon. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Instruction no.1916 dated 11/05/1994 is guide lines for seizure of jewellery and ornaments in course of search with respect to the seizure in the case of person not assessed to tax and not to treat the unexplained jewellery as explained to the extent provided in the instruction even when no supporting evidences and bifurcation about....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....count of unexplained jewellery out of jewellery found at the time of search. 3. Briefly stated facts are that a search and seizure action was conducted in the case of assessee on 21.02.2006. Assessee filed his return of income on 28.02.2007 declaring total income of Rs. 35,430/-. Notice u/s.143(2) was issued on 17.09.2007 for initiating assessment proceedings. Assessing Officer completed the assessment of the assessee at a total income of Rs. 16,69,802/- by making two additions; i. for unaccounted cash at Rs. 2,10,450/- and ii. For unaccounted investment in jewellery at Rs. 14,23,922/-. 4. Aggrieved assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) who deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved Revenue is in appeal be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wellery of the lady members of the assessee family nowhere the instruction says that the excess jewellery should not be taxed at the time of framing assessment. Ld. D.R. further submitted that Assessing Officer has already accepted the explained jewellery of 3683.68 gr. and diamond of 117.63 carat and for the remaining jewellery of 1924.22 gr. as there was no justifiable explanation given by the assessee, he has taken shelter of the CBDT Instruction No.1916 dated 11.05.1994 which should be denied and the addition of unaccounted investment in jewellery at Rs. 14,23,922/- to be confirmed. 6. On the other hand, ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that assessee's family is a joint family, wherein assessee lives with his wife, two married ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....namely, Shri Chandrakant Khokhariya and Shri Pareshbhai Khokhariya and jewellery owned and possessed in the joint name by assessee's wife, two daughters-in-law, three grand children. Ld. A.R. further submits that CBDT instruction no.1916 dated 11.05.1994 refers to a minimum quantity of gold jewellery which normally is possessed by a married woman, unmarried woman and grand children and applying the same the minimum justified jewellery which could be possessed by assessee's wife, two daughters-in-law, two grand daughters and grand son will work out as under: Sr. No. Name Relationship Gold (Gms) 1. Devkorben Wife 500 2. Rashmitaben Daughter-in-law 500 3. Maitri Grand- daughter 250 4. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d jewellery from their parents, relatives and other family members on various auspicious occasions, festivals and marriage ceremonies. 7.2 The CBDT instruction no.1916 dated 11.05.1994 suggests that a family is supposed to hold certain jewellery received at the time of marriages from parents and in laws within the limit of 500 gr. of jewellery for a married woman, 250 gr. for unmarried daughters and 100 gr. with unmarried child. Though, the instruction speaks of not seizing the same during search operation extended meaning of the same shows extension that the jewellery should be treated as explained one and is not to be treated as unexplained for the purpose of income tax. Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Ratanlal....