TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 971
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h, certain cash, jewellery and other documents were found. Total jewellery weighing 2327.6 gms. valued at Rs. 41,67,837/- was found from the assessee and his family members, detailed as under:- i) Jewellery belonging to Smt. Neelam Verma W/o Sh. Subash Chander Verma from the residence at N-34, 1st Floor, GK Part I, N Delhi. Rs.13,87,056/- ii) Locker No.727 Alaknanda Vaults Pvt. Ltd., N Delhi belonging to Smt. Neelam Verma Rs.8,22,520/- iii) Locker No.726 Alaknanda Vaults Pvt. Ltd., N Delhi belonging to Smt. Shilpa Verma w/o Sh. Sumit Verma Rs.7,11,205/- iv) Bed room of Smt. Shilpa Verma w/o Sh. Sumit Verma Rs.12,47,056/- Total Rs.41,67,837/- 3. The AO noticed that the assessee in response to question no. 2 in the statement of rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s was found from the bed rooms of the assessee and his son and two lockers, viz., one in the name of the assessee's wife and the other in the name of the assessee's daughter-in-law. In response to question no. 3, during the course of statement recorded u/s 132(4), the assessee submitted that his wife was employed with National Insurance Company and his son Shri Sumit Verma was employed with M/s Religare Insurance group with annual income of Rs. 7 lac. The assessee also submitted that his daughterin- law, Mrs. Shilpa, was working with M/s Steria and drawing a salary of Rs. 8 lac per annum. This shows that the assessee's son and daughter-inlaw were having their separate sources of income. The search was conducted at the residential premises o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otal jewellery belonging to the assessee by relying on this Instruction. The ld. DR vehemently contended that such an Instruction is relevant only for seizure at the time of search and hence cannot be applied in the context of addition. He tried to fortify his view by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of VGP Ravidas vs. ACIT (2014) 51 Taxmann.com 16 (Mad). 6. There is no dispute on the fact that the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the aforenoted case has held that the Instruction No.1916 issued by the Board cannot be considered for making addition on account of unexplained investment. However, we find that this Instruction has been held to be applicable in the context of making addition u/s 69A/69B by the Ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....maining addition be also deleted. In that case, jewellery weighing 906.900 gms was found and the AO accepted only 400 gms. as explained. Addition was made for the remaining jewellery to the extent of 506.900. The Hon'ble High Court treated the entire jewellery explained by considering that holding of such a jewellery could not be considered as excessive `in the peculiar facts of this case'. This judgment does not lay down a universal law that any weight of jewellery can be treated as explained in all the circumstances. We have noted that the judgment was rendered only in the peculiar facts as were obtaining in that case. Morevoer, in that case, the AO did not apply the mandate of the Instruction for treating some jewellery as explained. He ....