TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 1177
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Preeti Singh which was adjudicated by this Tribunal in ITA No. 980/Del/2023 for AY 2021-22. 4. For the sake of ready reference and brevity the order in the case of Preeti Singh (supra) is reproduced here under:- The present appeal has been filed by assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-4, Kanpur dated 27.02.2023. 2. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 27.11.2020 in the premises of M/s. Shiv Shakti Constructions Group of cases and as part of the same action, the premise of the appellant Smt. Preeti Singh was also covered. The case of the appellant was centralized to the jurisdiction of DCIT Central Circle-ll, Noida. Return of income was filed on 28.12.2021 declaring income of Rs. 3,90,510/-. Notice u/s 143(2) of IT Act was issued and served upon the appellant on 23.02.2022. Later on, notices u/s 142(1) of the Act alongwith questionnaire were also issued and A.O. completed the assessment by making addition of Rs. 9,66,000/- u/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 acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and niece. And the total allowable limit as per CBDT Instruction no. 1916 is mentioned as 3100 grams. 5.2 The reply of the assessee is considered however it is not found tenable. The assessee has included the name of her sister, sister-in-law and niece in her calculation of allowable limit. However, she has not produced any evidence that they reside with her or the jewelry belongs to them. As per the address mentioned in their voter id card, they have a different address. The assessee has also not justified why they should be included in calculating the allowable limit as they were also not residing with her at the time of search. The assessee has also not produced any bills and vouchers and source of purchase in respect of the jewelry found at her premise. 5.3 in view of the facts mentioned above and in light of CBDT Instruction no. 1916 dated 11.05.1994, the allowable limit of jewellery in case of the assessee and his family is as under:- S. No Person Allowable Limit 1. Shri Chander Pal (Husband) 100 gm 2. Smt. Preeti Singh (Self) 500 gm 3. Smt. Draupadi Devi (Mother in law expired 2021) 500 gm 4. Master Anirudh Singh (s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the hands of the appellant, the Assessing Officer made an addition of the value of jewellery found in the locker without giving any credit in accordance with the CBDT Instruction. Thus, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs 9,66,000 section 69A of the Act in the hands of the appellant re jewellery found in the locker. 7. At the outset, the CBDT instruction on the subject is reproduced below for ready reference and record - "Instances of seizure of jewellery of small quantity in course of operations under section 132 have come to the notice of the Board. The question of a common approach to situations where search parties come across items of jewellery, has been examined by the Board and following guidelines are issued for strict compliance. (i) In the case of a wealth-tax assessee, gold jewellery and ornaments found in excess of the gross weight declared in the wealth-tax return only need be seized. (ii) In the case of a person not assessed to wealth-tax gold jewellery and ornaments to the extent of 500 gms. per married lady, 250 gms. per unmarried lady and 100 gms per male member of the family need not be seized. (iii) The author....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of Rs. 9,66,000/- made u/s 69A of IT Act on account of jewellery, the AO observed that during the course of search conducted at the premise of the assessee at C-8, Flat No. 8787, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, jewellery of Rs. 1,10,68,513/- (Gross weight 2834 gms) was found. Further in the locker in the name of the assessee i.e. Smt. Preeti Singh in PNB Vasant Vihar, jewellery of Rs. 9,66,000/-(Gross weight 227 gms) was found. Thus, the gross weight of total jewellery of the assessee and her husband was found to be 3061 grams. 6. The AO observes that in the light of CBDT Instruction no. 1916 dated 11.05.1994, the allowable limit of jewellery in case of the assessee and his family members is as under:- S. No Person Allowable Limit 1. Shri Chander Pal (Husband) 100 gm 2. Smt. Preeti Singh (Self) 500 gm 3. Smt. Draupadi Devi (Mother in law expired 2021) 500 gm 4. Master Anirudh Singh (son) 100 gm 5. Master Shauraya Singh (son) 100 gm Total 1300 gm 7. The moot issue in this appeal is whether the allowance of jewellery should be strictly restricted to 500 gms only as per the CBDT Circular or not. In th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The learned counsel for the appellant/assessee is correct in her submission that it is a normal custom for woman to receive jewellery in the form of "streedhan" or on other occasions such as birth of a child etc. Collecting jewellery of 906.900 grams by a woman in a married life of 25-30 years is not abnormal. Furthermore, there was no valid and/or proper yardstick adopted by the Assessing Officer to treat 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." The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Suneela Soni Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 5259/DEL/2017 held as follows: "6.1 After perusing the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, I am of the considered view that facts and circumstances of the present case are similar to the aforesaid de....