2021 (3) TMI 878

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... excess jewellery had to be made, it would have to be made in the hands of the ladies of the family. b) alternatively, and without prejudice to the stand made above, if addition had to be made on account of excess jewellery, then it had to be made pro-rata in the hands of all the family members." 2. The hearing of the appeal was concluded trough video conference in view of the prevailing situation of Covid-19 Pandemic. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee derived income from salary and interest earned on deposits with bank. A search u/s 132 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) was conducted on the business and residential premises of M/s Integral Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. and persons associated with this entity on 11.12.2016. The house of the assessee was also searched since he draws salary from the bank as CEO. During the course of the search, no incriminating document was found. However, jewellery belonging to the assessee and his family members living under the same roof was found and seized. Assessee filed his return of income on 24.07.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 11,59,640/-. Assessment order was passed on 10.12.2018 and the o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to be given as per circular 1916 of CBDT dated 11.05. 1994. Our case is also the same. It is further submitted that the status of the family has not been fully appreciated. The following family members of the joint family were income-tax payers and were filing returns of income. Keshav Gupta, the Appellant, has declared the following income in his returns: S.No. Assessment Year Income returned 1. 2017-18 11,59,640/- 2. 2016-17 12,13,460/- 3. 2015-16 9,96,590/- 4. 2014-15 8,72,640/- 5. 2013-14 7,79,360/- 6. 2012-13 6,71,600/- It may also be submitted that the following members of the joint family are also filing returns of income: Name of family member A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 Munni Devi 2,48, 169 2,63,523 1,45,494 Preeti Devi 2,66,706 2,73,067 84,061 Manphooli Devi 6,10,587 6,54,971 6,82,742 Suresh Kumar 1,26,000 2,87,055 2,99,197 Ojas Badaya A.Y 2019-20 3,06,840/-     Copies of the returns filed by Smt. Munni Devi, Manphooli devi, Preeti Devi. Suresh Kumar for A.Y. 2018-19 and that filed by Oj as B....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dition has to be made, will be made only in the hands of the Appellant. At best, the addition had to be restricted on pro-rata basis in the hands of the Appellant. Fifthly, it is submitted that the worthy CIT(A) has given credit for an additional 50 gms. in all the 7 hands. But the fact remains that more credit had to be given in the hands of the married females, followed by unmarried females, then the males. This fact has been recognised by the CBDT also in the circular mentioned supra wherein they have given credit of 500 gms., 250 gms., and 100 gms. respectively in the hands of the married females, unmarried females and males respectively. If the same ratio is adopted, then there are 3 married females, I unmarried female and 3 males in the joint family. If additional credit is given in the same ratio as given in the circular cited above, no addition results. To sum up, in view of the facts of the case, and the law thereon , keeping in mind the status and standing of the family, and the Indian tradition in the baniya community, the jewellery found during search can be easily explained to have been acquired from ancestors, and on the occasion of festivals, marria....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ands of each of the family members seeing the social standing and status. Thus, in this way, unexplained gold was held to be only at 297 gms. Although, the ld AR has challenged the entire addition before us by referring to the CBDT circular No. 1916 and submitted that both the lower authorities have not fully appreciated the status and standing of the family of the assessee because the status and standing of the family of the assessee was higher than the minimum recognize by the said circular and as per the assessee, the assesse was living in a joint family and almost all members of the family were income tax payers and were filing their respective returns of income and in this respect, the assessee has also filed on record details of income tax paid by each member of the joint family and the details of the same are as under: S.No. Assessment Year Income returned 1. 2017-18 11,59,640/- 2. 2016-17 12,13,460/- 3. 2015-16 9,96,590/- 4. 2014-15 8,72,640/- 5. 2013-14 7,79,360/- 6. 2012-13 6,71,600/-   Name of family member A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 Munni Devi 2,48, 169 2,63,523 1,....