TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 617
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....143 (3) r.w.s 153A dated 12.03.2015 & 27.03.2015 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -2, Surat(in short "the AO"). I.T.(S.S.A) No. 70/AHD/2017/A.Y. 2011-12: By the assessee : 2. Ground No. 1 to 3 are against the confirmation of disallowance of unexplained expenditure being premium paid on life insurance policy of Rs. 19,692 under section 69C of the Act. 3. From the AO noted that the assessee has claimed deduction under section 80C of the Act in respect of LIP premium of Rs. 19,692 but failed to furnish copy of life insurance policy premium receipts and payment was not reflected in bank account. Hence, same was disallowed. 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that the AO has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r section 69C of the Act. 9. The AO noted that the assessee has claimed deduction under section 80C of the Act in respect of LIP premium of Rs. 39,384, but failed to furnish copy of life insurance policy premium receipts and payment was not reflected in bank account. Hence, same was disallowed. 10. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that the AO has allowed deduction under section 80C of the Act were disallowed premium payment under section 69C of the Act being unexplained expenditure, hence, the addition so made by the AO was confirmed. 11. Being, aggrieved the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel submitted that the AO has disallowed the claim, as the assessee did not furnish the copy of a life insurance polic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e InstructionNo.1916 cannot be accepted. Hence, the nature of said diamonds jewellery would be unexplained expenditure, hence, same was added under section 69A of the Act. 16. Being, aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the total gold jewellery of 762.600 grams and Diamond jewellery of 7.65 carats were found during search, but no ornaments were seized. The assessee has relied on CBDT instruction number 1916 dated 11. 05. 1914 and various decisions of the Courts to say that the gold jewellery and ornaments commensurate with the status of the family should be treated as explained. The assessee has produce bills of purchase of goods worth Rs. 2 Lacs in A.Y. 2007-08. It is obser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....21. Nothing was seized during search. As per CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994, jewellery of 500 grams in the case of married lady member need not be seized. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Ratanlal Vyapari (supra) observed that CBDT Instruction No. 1916 laid down guidelines for seizure of jewellery in the course of search takes into account the quantity of jewellery which should be generally be held by the family members of an assessee, and, therefore, unless anything contrary is shown , it can be safely presumed that the source to the extent of the jewellery stated in the Circular stands explained. We find that that in the case of the assessee only 321 grams of jewellery belonging to the assessee was found, w....