TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 1215
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s 69A of IT Act on account of unexplained jewellery. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the undersigned. 3. The Grounds of appeal relate to addition of Rs. 9,66,000/- u/s 69A of IT Act on account of unexplained jewellery. The relevant part of assessment order is as under: A search & seizure operations u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 was conducted on 27.11.2020 on the premises of M/s Shiv Shakti Construction. The business premise of the firm and residences of its partners and their associates were covered under the search operation. The assessee is one of the partners in M/s Daurau Farms LLP. The residential as well as business premises of the assessee were covered. In view of search operation the group cases were centralized to Central Circle II Noida. 2. Consequently, for the purpose of assessment, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 20/01/2022 was issued through ITBA Portal and duly served upon the assessee. Assessee has e-filed return of income on 28.12.2021 declaring total income as Rs. 3.90.510- Subsequently, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 23.02.2022 through ITBA and duly served upon the assessee. Further. a notice u/s 142(1) alongwith detailed questi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mt. Preeti Singh (Self) 500gm 3. Smt. Draupadi Devi (Mother in law expired 2021) 500 gm 4. Master Anirudh Singh (son) 100gm 5. Master Shauraya Singh (son) 100gm Total 1300gm 5.4 Accordingly the allowable amount of jewelry comes out to be Rs. 51,11,030/- (1.20.34.513 Assessee 130030611. Hence, the remaining amount of unexplained jewelry comes out to be Rs. 69.23.4801-. As the asseessee has not furnished any bills/vouchers. wealth tas return and source of purchase of the jewelry found in her house and locker. Hence, the entire amount of Rs. 69,23.480 - is treated as unexplained. However, since the assessee was holding locker in PN Vasant Vihar Branch in which jewellery worth Rs. 9,66,000/- was found. Hence, the unexplained jewelry to the tune of Rs. 9,66,000/- is added in the hands of the assessee and the remaining jewellery is added in the hands of husband of the assessee Sh. Chander Pal. 4. In this regard, assessee filed written submission before the ld. CIT(A), the relevant portion of written submission is reproduced as under: 1. The appellant for the year under reference filed her return of income on 28.12.2021 declaring total income at Rs 3,90,510. 2. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i) The authorised officer may, having regard to the status of the family, and the custom 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 authorising the search at the time of furnishing the search report (iv) In all cases, a detailed inventory of the jewellery and ornaments found must be prepared to be used for assessment purposes. These guidelines may please be brought to the notice of the officers in your region." 8. The appellant submits that the aforesaid jewellery was gifted to her on various occasions such as marriage, birth of children, etc.; such gifts are very common in Indian culture and society. Further, looking at the status of the family of which the appellant is a part, the quantum of such gift of jewellery is not uncommon and hence, the said jewellery cannot be treated as unexplained as per the provisions of section 69A of the Act. 9. The appellant contends that the Assessing Officer erred in taking gross weight as a basis to calculate the credit allowed as per the CBDT ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rcular and the equivalent value of the remaining 215 grms was considered as on undisclosed income and brought to tax. We have gone through the taxable income of the assessee for the last few years which is as under :- Assessment Year Returned Income 2012-13 14,83,855.00 2013-14 12,54,564.00 2014-15 14,17,162.00 2015-16 6,22,432.00 2016-17 7,03,688.00 2017-18 7,28,688.00 2018-19 7,24,690.00 2019-20 13,52,157.00 2020-21 8,48,060.00 2021-22 3,90,510.00 2022-23 4,90,970.00 8. The assessee stated that the income for all the years shows that the assessee has been earning substantial Income clearly establishing the status. It has time and again been held that due credit of the same has to be allowed by the assessing officer looking and appreciating the status, customs, and traditions relating to the family. Reliance is being placed upon following decisions: Ashok Chaddha vs. ITO, 14 taxmann.com 57 (Delhi) Vibhu Aggarwal vs. DCIT, 93 taxmann.com 275 (Delhi - Trib.) Tara Devi Goenka vs. CIT 122 ITR 14 (Cal) Ms. Pooja Shree Chouksey Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 572/lnd/2018 CIT Vs. Kailash Chand Sharma 198 CTR 201 (Raj) Suneela Soni Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 5259/DEL/20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k Chadha vs. ITO reported in 14 taxmann.com 57 (Delhi.)/202 Taxman 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 AO 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. 7. In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed." 10. The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Vibhu Aggarwal vs. DCIT 93 taxmann.com 275 (Delhi - Trib.) held that where Assessing Officer under section 69A made addition on account of jewellery found in search of assessee, since assessee belonged to a wealthy family and jewellery was received on occasions from relatives, excess jewellery was very much reasonable and, thus, no addition under section 69A was called for. The operative part of the judgment is reproduced below: "2. The brief facts of the case are that 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 ....