TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1516
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce of the assessee, among other things, gold jewellery of 2594.70 gms (Net) and silver bars of 18 Kgs were found. During the post search proceedings, he was asked to explain them . The assessee explained as under: "In the course of search, gold jewellery of 2594.70 grams was found. Out of which 1341.40 grams was seized. My family consists of myself, my wife Neeta Kumari, my daughter Apeksha and Anchal and my son Shiok. My wife Neeta Kumari was declared gold jewellery of 1050 grams and 7 carats of diamond and silver of 12 Kgs before the department. Further, credit is to be given for jewellery of other 4 members of about 900 grams (250 + 250 + 200 + 200 grams). Also I had received a gift of 100 grams Gold on 29.09.2009 from Prameela Singh ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ular highlights only 'Non-seizure' of certain minimum amount of gold jewellery only. No where, the circular mentions that the assessee is immune from explaining the total quantum of gold or silver items found. The circular clearly states the certain amount of jewellery not to be seized and credit to be given to married women in the family, unmarried women and men of the family. This credit does not mean the assessee should not explain the sources for the total quantum and account the entire gold and silver found in his books. 05. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT (A). The CIT (A) upheld the action of the AO. In view of that the assessee filed this appeal with following grounds of appeal: 1. The learned Ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11. The CBDT has issued a Circular No. 1916 dated 11. 05.94 providing for non-seizure of certain minimum amount of gold jewellery, etc. Though it is true that the above mentioned Circular is with reference to seizure of jewellery, the same is taken into account the quantity of jewellery which would generally be held by the family members as upheld by the Karnataka High court in the case of Pati Devi (240 ITR 727). Similar view has also been held by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ratanlal Vyparilal Jain in 339 ITR 351, Para 10 is relevant to this issue. The Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Harish S. Patel Vs. DCIT (2012) 6 Taxcorp (A. T) 28617 has endorsed the same view. Finally, the AR relied on this T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee, 100 gms for assessee's son, 250 gms for assessee's daughter and 500 gms for assessee's daughter-in-law. Contention of the Ld. AR that status of the assessee had to be considered and higher relief should be given cannot be accepted for the simple reason that nothing was produced to show any special social status enjoyed by the assessee, except for stating that assessee belonged to a marwari business family. 09. Vis-a-vis silver, circular does not mention anything about holding of silver or diamonds. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the maximum relief that could be given to the assessee is only on the value of gold jewellery to the extent of holding mentioned at para 8 above. Addition made for unexplained silver found at the....