TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (6) TMI 918
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tal jewellery against, which no seizure was effected. Further, it was explained that search party was satisfied with the explanation and on the basis of total number of family members. In his written submission dated 5.12.2008, it was submitted that the jewellery was received on marriage and various other ceremonies. Further, in it was claimed that with regards to members in the family, the jewellery found is well within the limits of CBDT instruction no.1916 dt 11.5.1994. 2.1 The Assessing Officer recorded that the assessee could not submit all the details such as purchase bills, gift deed, proof of gift received, proof that the gifts are received on various occasions. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee made investment in Assessment Year 2006-07, which are not recorded in the books of account and also could not prove the source of income for such investment. Consequently, addition of Rs. 16,23,370/- was mad u/s 69A of the I T Act. 3 On appeal, the CIT(A) gave part relief to the assessee to the extent of the quantity of the jewellery as per the limit prescribed in CBDT instruction no.1916 dated 11.5.1994; but only with regard to the assessee and his wif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee had explained the source of the jewellery and receipts by the assessee and his wife on various occasions as per the details given above. He has further submitted that as per the circular no.1916 dated 11.5.1994, the jewellery, to the extent of the limit prescribed in the said circular, per person of the joint family should be allowed as explained, being jewellery held by the family as general practice in the Joint Hindu family. He has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain reported in 45 DTR 290(Guj). He has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Smt Pati Devi vs ITO & Anr reported in 240 ITR 727(kar) and submitted that the assessee is entitled to benefit as per the circular dated 11.5.1994 to the extent of limit prescribed in the said circular for each member of the family. 4.1 Alternatively, the ld AR of the assessee argued that tax involved in the revenue' appeal is less than Rs. 3 lacs and therefore, in view of CBDT circular the appeal of the revenue is not maintainable. 4.2 The ld DR on the other hand, submitted that the assessee has failed to submit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T(A). The CIT(A) has given relief after considering the relevant material and adjudicated the issue in para 3.5 to 4.1 as under: "3.5 I have carefully considered the facts and submissions. It is seen that the jewellery valuing at Rs. 1,21,950/- was found in the locker no.148 of Kapol Coop Bank in the name of Mrs Jyoti R Mehta, mother of the appellant. It has been claimed that jewellery found in the locker belonged to her. Considering the fact that appellant belonged to joint Hindu family where t was customary for ladies to received some amount of jewellery at the time of marriage and other festivals and the quantity of jewellery found in the locker was well within the limits of CBDT instruction no.1916, the jewellery found in the aforesaid locker at Rs. 1,21,950/deserves to be accepted as belonging to Mrs Jyoti Mehta. 4.1 With regards to the jewellery of Rs. 13,46,780/- in the locker no.512 of UCO Bank in the name of the appellant and Neeta Mehta, it is seen that the appellant had not been able to furnish any documentary evidence supporting the claim for receipt of jewellery by way of gifts on various occasions. No evidence has been adduced to how that the mother ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....occasions and some part of the jewellery purchased by the assessee himself, then the benefit of the limit prescribed in the circular no.1916 dt 11.5.1994 can be availed only to the assessee and the wife and to the extent of the jewellery found in the bank locker in the name of the mother of the assessee. The instruction no.1916 dated 11.5.1994 reads as under: "Search & seizure Section 132 Instances of seizure of jewellery of small quantity in course of operations under s. 132 have come to the notice of the Board. The question of a common approach to situations where search parties come across items of jewellery, has been examined by the Board and following guidelines are issued for strict compliance - i) In the case of a wealth tax assessee, gold jewellery and ornaments found in excess of the gross weight declared in the wealth tax return only need be seized. ii) In the case of a person not assessed to wealth tax, gold jewellery and ornaments to the extent of 500 gm per married lady, 250 gms per unmarred lady and 100 gms per male member of the family, need not be seized. iii) The authorised officer may, having regard to the stat....