TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 586
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d as well as in the residential premise of the Directors on 28.03.2011, in consequence to which the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny. The AO has completed the assessment by making an addition of 30,73,373 on account of unexplained investment in jewellery and addition of Rs. 1,87,082/- on account of unexplained investment in property. The total jewellery found during the course of search was 2531.5 gms, out of which the AO has given assessee the benefit of 950 gms, as per the CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.4.1994 on account of wife and two children of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) in appeal has further allowed the benefit of 600 gms. Of jewellery on account of mother and father of the assessee, holding that the same was allowable to the assessee as per the CBDT Instruction No. 1916, but however, sustained the balance addition made by the AO, vide order dated 22.12.2014 treating the balance jewellery weighting 1050 gms of gold as unexplained. 3. Aggrieved with the impugned order dated 22.12.2014 assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that lower authorities have wrongly made and / or partly upheld ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orities below and the case laws referred by Assessee's counsel. We find that in this case a search & seizure operation under section 132 of the IT Act was conducted at the business premises of M/s Best Group and as well as in the residential premise of the Directors on 28.03.2011, in consequence to which the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny. The AO called for an explanation during the assessment proceedings explaining all the items of jewellery found during the course of search. In reply, the assessee explained that the jewellery belongs to the assessee's parents, their HUF, assessee's family members and his HUF. Most of the jewellery items were inherited from his grandparents and received as gifts on the occasion of marriage and birth of his children and also gifts were received on marriage anniversary, birthdays of children etc. and there was no occasion to file the wealth tax as the net wealth did not exceed the minimum limit prescribed under the Wealth Tax from period to period in each case, therefore neither the assessee nor his family members were assessed to wealth tax. The AO has completed the assessment by making an addition of 40,73,373 on account of unexpla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the realities of life by holding as under:- "As far as addition qua jewellery is concerned, during the course of search, jewellery weighing 906.900 grams of the value amounting to Rs. 6,93,582 was found. The appellant's explanation was that he was married about 25 years back and the jewellery comprised "streedhan" of Smt. Jyoti Chadha, his wife and other small items jewellery subsequently purchased and accumulated over the years. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the above explanation on the ground that documentary evidence regarding family status and their financial position was not furnished by the appellant. The Assessing Officer accepted 400 grams of jewellery as explained and treated jewellery amounting to 506.900 grams as unexplained and made an ad hoc addition of Rs. 3,87,364 under section 69A of the Act working on unexplained jewellery, by applying average rate of the total jewellery found. The relevant portion of the assessment order reads as follows:- "a very reasonable allowance of ownership of gold jewellery to the extent of 400 grams is considered reasonable and the balance quantity of 506 grams by applying average rate, the unexplain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eat only 400 grams as "reasonable allowance" and treat the other as "unexplained". Matter would have been different if the quantum and value of the jewellery found was substantial. 4. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the findings of the Tribunal are totally perverse and far from the realities of life. In the peculiar facts of this case we answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue thereby deleting the aforesaid addition of Rs. 3,87,364. 5. Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms." ii) Jurisdiction High Court in the case of Sushila Devi in Writ Petition No. 7620 of 2011 dated 21.10.2016 wherein it has been held as under:- "The income tax authorities rationale or justification is entirely insubstantial. The assessee says that she was married in mid 1960s and her daughters were born in 1967. She was 70 when these proceedings were started. The income tax authorities do not deny this. In the circumstances, the further explanation that the jewellery belonged to her and represented accumulations of gifts received from family members over a period of time, and also acquired during the subsistence of her marriage....