TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 192
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....found in the residence of the assessee during the course of search 2.1 The CIT(A) erred in relying on the assessee's explanation that the assessee & his wife admitted income of over Rs. 2 Crores from the assessment years 2014-15 to 2020-21 and concluding that the assessee had enough resources to invest in Jewellery, without considering the other investments and outflow of funds from his returned income. 2.2 The CIT(A) erred in concluding that the assessee had enough resources to invest in jewellery, without appreciating that the assessee himself admitted drawings in the name of himself and his wife amounted to only Rs. 17,10,102/- for AYs 2014-15 to 2019-20 whereas the value of jewellery found is Rs. 78,23,239/- 2.3 The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee failed to discharge the onus cast on him to prove that the investment in jewellery was made from the explained sources of income. 3. For these grounds and any other ground including amendment of grounds that may be raised during the course of the appeal proceedings, the order of learned CIT(Appeals) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 1.3 The gro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave to make. As far as source of jewellery, irrespective of the quantity seized, the holder of jewellery will have to explain the source for each gram found during the course of search. There is a world of difference between a CBDT Circular and CBDT Instruction. b) CBDT Circulars are issued u/s 119(2) (a) of the Act and it is published and circulated for general information of public at large. Such circulars are binding both on the Income Tax Authorities as well as the taxpayers. c) CBDT instructions are issued u/s 119(1) of the Act to the subordinate Income Tax authorities and is not published nor circulated for the general information of the public at large. The instructions so issued are made available only to the Income Tax Authorities and are not to be shared with the public. As could be demonstrated, no instructions issued by the CBDT, in the past or current, are published in the CBDT website as available in the URL https://incometaxindia.gov.in. Such instructions are made available for access to the Income Tax authorities only in the portal 'https://www.irsofficersonline.gov.in', that too, under three layer authentication requirement indicating the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rding carrying on of independent financial business and admission that the material seized from M/s Sriram Studios belonged to him, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed impugned addition which is the grievance of the assessee. 3.2 On the issue of jewellery, the assessee submitted that the addition was contrary to aforesaid CBDT instructions. The assessee relied on various judicial decisions holding the field wherein it was held that possession of jewellery to the extent of the quantities specified in the instructions was to be treated as reasonable and therefore, should not be subjected to addition. These decisions include the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Satya Narain Patni (46 Taxmann.com 440), the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Ghanshyam Das Johri (41 Taxmann.com 295); the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain (339 ITR 351). The assessee also brought on record the fact that it admitted income of Rs. 138.47 Lacs during AYs 2014-15 to 2020-21. Similarly, the assessee's wife reflected income of Rs. 76.92 Lacs during AYs 2016-17 to 2020-21 to support the submissions that it had sufficient means to acquire the jew....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onwards. The total income disclosed by the Appellant from the AY(s) 2014-15 to 2020 is Rs. 1.38 Crores and his wife from the AY(s) 2016-17 to 2020-21 is Rs. 76 Lakhs and the total income disclosed by the appellant and his wife together is more than Rs. 2 Crores. These facts confirms that the Appellant and his wife have sufficient resources good enough to make investments in gold jewellery even it were not to consider Sreedhan brought by the Appellant's wife. In view of the submission I am constrained to treat the investment made in Gold jewellery by the Appellant as explained and consider the value of jewellery have been invested over a period of time by the Appellant, his wife and other members of his family. In view of this the action on the part of the AO to treat the entire value of jewellery found during the course of search is not reasonable. Moreover the AO has not made any findings in the assessment order to treat the entire value of jewellery found during the course of search as unexplained. In this background, it is considered that there exists no ground to treat any part of the jewellery as unexplained in the hands of the appellant. Accordingly the Ground No. 3 raise....