2017 (7) TMI 804

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....red in upholding the addition made by the Assessing on account of unexplained investment (after reducing the value of jewellary of 100 gm per male as per Board instruction no 1916 dated 11.05.1994) under the provision of section 69 of the income tax Act, 1961. 3. That the ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance a claim u/s 80C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for sum of Rs. 20000/-." 2. The ground No.1 is general in nature therefore same is dismissed. 3. Ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is against the order of the ld CIT(A) wherein an addition of Rs. 923000/- was reduced by only 100 grams instead of deleting and thereby confirming the balance jewellery as undisclosed income of the assessee. During the course of search u....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....en received and the same is disregarded. He referred to page 26 and 27 of the paper book to show that details. He further referred to the affidavit of the mother of the assessee who was an income tax assessee showing gift received. He further explained that a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs was withdrawn from the saving bank account of the mother of the assessee for purchase of jewellery etc at the time of marriage. He vehemently explained that family status of the assessee and the instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1996 squarely covers the issue in its favour. He therefore, submitted that the ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition. 5. Ld DR relied upon the order of the ld Assessing Officer and ld CIT(A) and further submitted that the assessee's ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....antity of gold in his possession. Further, it was unexpected to reject the contention of the assessee merely for non-filing of return of wealth tax as well as the statement of affairs under the income tax act when assessee is not legally obliged to. In view of this, we delete the addition made by the ld AO and reverse the order of Ld CIT (A). In the result ground no 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 7. Ground No 3 of the appeal of the assessee is against the disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 80 C of the act of Rs. 20,000/-. the claim of the assessee was for Rs. 50,000/- out of which Rs. 30,000/- was allowed by the ld AO for the reason that it should be out of income chargeable to tax, which was confirmed by CIT (A). 8. LD A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e view taken by the Orissa High Court in the case of CIT v. Usharani Panda (Dr.) [1995] 212 ITR 119 and CIT v. Ram Mohan Rawat [2002] 255 ITR 555 (Raj). 7. For the reasons given in the case of CIT v. Ramesh Chandra Khandelwal [2005] 273 ITR 363 (All) with which we respectfully agree." We allow the claim of the assessee fully for deduction u/s 80 C of the act reversing the orders of lower authorities. The Ground No 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No. 1779/Del/2012 (Assessment Year: 2006-07) Pooja Mantaktala, C-1, Street, 6-F, Sainik Farms, New Delhi PAN:AIBPM4313M (Appellant) Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi (Respondent) 11. The assessee has ra....