TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 82
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y members and by grossly ignoring the submissions made and evidences adduced, thus the resultant addition deserves to be deleted. 1.2 That the ld. CIT(A) has further erred in ignoring the fact that the jewellery so found was the ''STRIDHAN'' of the ladies of the family of the assesse and was acquired by them on various occasions since past long, thus the sources cannot be treated as unexplained and accordingly the addition so made u/s 69 deserves to be deleted.'' 2.1 The Ground Nos. 1 and 1.2 raised by the assessee are interconnected and relates to challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.17,55,262/- made on account of jewellery (Rs.15,52,634/- Gold Jewellery and Rs.2,02,628/-Silver Jewellery) found from the residence as well as bank locker of the assessee during the course of search. Therefore, we thought it fit to decide this issue by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity of the case. 2.2 We have heard the Counsel of both the parties and we have also perused the materials placed on record i.e. impugned orders as well as judgements relied upon by both the parties. From the records, we noticed that the assessee is an i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wat No. 71, IDBI Bank, Tonk Road, Jaipur 795.50 0.36 22,85,116.00 JF-2 Bedroom of Rekha Shekhawat 386.10 2.26 13,47,361.00 JF-3 Locker in the name of Usha Shekhawat & Gyanendra Shekhawat No. 23, Allahabad Bank, Tonk Road, Jaipur 243.80 6,06,297.00 JF-4, Bedroom of Usha Shekhawat 496.40 3.40 14,08,640.00 Total 1921.80 6.02 56,47,414.00 3.2 The above jewellery found belong to our ancestral family and was received on the occasion of my marriage, marriage of my parents, at the time of birth of my son and other family functions/occasions. I am enclosing herewith few photographs of his marriage for evidencing the jewellery wore by him and his wife at the time of marriage. 3.3 Some of the jewellery was also purchased by me out of cash drawing made by me from my IDBI bank account as under:- Date Cash withdrawal (Rs.) 23-01-2013 3,75,000.00 31-01-2013 1,20,000.00 15-03-2014 5,00,000.00 02-02-2015 2,00,000.00 09-02-2015 3,00,000.00 02-12-2015 1,00,000.00 09-12-2015 2,00,000.00 Total 17,95,000.00 I have already submitted my IDBI Bank Statement 3.4. I would like to bring to your kind notice Instruction ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... wearing heavy gold jewellery which according to him is a part of STREEDHAN and deserves to be treated as explained. The ld. AR of the assessee has also drawn our attention to the cash withdrawn by him from his bank account for purchasing some jewellery from time to time in past many years out of his own savings. Therefore, according to the ld. AR of the assesee, the acquisition of jewellery is not excessive looking to the social status of the assessee. 2.4 At this stage, we appreciate CBDT Circular regarding seizure of jewellery during search wherein it has been specifically mentioned at clause (iii) of Circular as under:- "(iii) The authorized officer may having regard to the status of the family and the customs and practices of the community to which the family belongs and other circumstances of the case, decide to exclude a larger quantity of jewellery and ornaments from seizure. This should be reported to the Director of Income tax/Commissioner authorizing the search all the time of furnishing the search report" 2.5 In our view the intention of law is to stick to the jewellery limits mentioned in the Circular. There was no point in inserting the provision at clause (iii) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he anvil of the judgement of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Ashok Chadha vs. ITO reported in 14 taxmann.com 57 (Delhi)/202 Taxmann 395 the explanation given by the assessee's counsel is accepted Accordingly the orders of the authorities below are cancelled and addition made by the 10 and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) amounting to Rs. 10,65,312/- on account of purported unexplained jewellery claimed by the assessee is deleted" (iii) ITAT Indore bench in the case of Sh. Dinkar Laxman Majumdar vs DCIT in ITA No. 593/Ind/2017 has held as under: (APB 55-56) 11. In the instant case Ld.CIT(A) following the above referred CBDT instructions allowed the claim of investment in gold jewellery weighing 242 gms but confirmed the addition for silver articles weighing 1812 gms. The above referred instructions refers only to "jewellery and ornaments" and nowhere restrict it to gold jewellery. One cannot ignore the fact that in the Indian families there is a culture of giving silver ornaments and utensils on auspicious and marriage occasions, Restricting the limit of 500 gm/250 gm/100 gm only to the "gold jewellery ornaments" will not serve the true purpose of the CBDT instructions a....