TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 774
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 3. In view of the submission made, ITA No.977/Del/2023 is dismissed as withdrawn. 4. We now advert to ITA No.1067/Del/ 2023 concerning Assessment Year 2021-22 for adjudication on merits. 5. Briefly stated, a search and seizure action under Section 132 of the Act was conducted on 27.11.2020 at the premises of M/ s. Shiv Shakti Construction which included the assessee herein. During the course of search at the premises occupied by the assessee at 803, Crescent Court, Jaypee Greens Greater Noida, jewellery worth Rs. 81,12,090/- (gross weight 2217.30 gms) was found at the residence whereas jewellery worth Rs. 12,06,000/- ( gross weight 261.900 gms.) was found in the locker. The gross weight of total jewellery thus found was 2479.20 gms. The return filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2021- 22 was thus centralized with group cases and the assessment was framed under Section 143 (3) of the Act. The source of jewellery in the course of the assessment was inquired. It was pointed out to AO that jewellery pertains to the assessee, her husband, two sons, mother-in-law and two sister-in- laws. In the light of the CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994, the Assessing Officer gran....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ti Singh ( Self) 914 . 70 gms Appellant 500 414 . 70 3 . Smt. Shakuntalu devi 500 gms Appellant' s mother- in- law 500 NIL 4 . Sh. Samrat Singh ( son) 100 gms Appellant' s son 100 NIL 5 . Sh. Yuvraj Singh ( son) 100 gms Appellant' s son 100 NIL 6 . Smt. Anju Singh 514 . 00 gms Appellant' s sister- in- law NIL 514 . 00 gms 7 . Smt. Surekha Singh 250 . 400 gms Appellant' s sister- in- law NIL 250 . 400 gms Total 2479 . 10 gms 1300 gms 1179 . 10 gms 11. The assessee thus submits that the Assessing Officer has ignored the normal practices and customs of Indian Society where the women, for variety of reasons, have been keeping their jewellery in maternal house. The sisters of husband of the assessee have kept a part of their jewellery in the custody of the assessee family which is not uncommon in Indian families and therefore, there was no justification to ignore the explanation offered at the threshold in the course of the assessment proceedings. The ld. counsel also submits that the CBDT Instruction No. 1994 dated 11.05.1994 does not bar the retention of gold jewellery and ornaments above 500 per l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3 ,51 ,14 ,780 /- 2022 -23 2 ,70 ,58 ,455 /- 2023 -24 2 ,70 ,58 ,455 /- Total 21 ,08 ,40 ,086 /- Sh. Mukesh Singh (Spouse of the Appellant) Assessment Year Income of the Appellant ( in Rs.) 2012 -13 17 ,65 ,192 /- 2013 -14 92 ,01 ,502 /- 2014 -15 55 ,05 ,186 /- 2015 -16 1 ,11 ,88 ,412 /- 2016 -17 1 ,47 ,80 ,690 /- 2017 -18 1 ,07 ,55 ,278 /- 2018 -19 2 ,03 ,68 ,777 /- 2019 -20 2 ,62 ,16 ,266 /- 2020 -21 3 ,55 ,33 ,785 /- 2021 - 22 2 ,94 ,16 ,569 /- 2022 -23 1 ,79 ,89 ,313 /- 2023 -24 1 ,80 ,82 ,613 /- Total 18 ,27 ,20 ,970 /- 14. We observe that the income reported as tabulated above clearly shows that the assessee and her family members are high net worth individuals and having regard to their high status, holding such jewellery found in the custody of members of their families cannot be seen to be abnormal and consequently unexplained. Simultaneously, we take note of paragraph 3 of the CBDT instruction, where the status of the family and customs and practices of the community to which family belongs, permit an assessee to hold larger quantity of jewellery and ornaments out of the purview of seizure. As per the instruction, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red at Rs. 3,87,364 (506 /900 x 6,93,582 ) u/s 69 A of the Act." The CIT (A) confirmed this addition stating that the Assessing Officer had been fair in accepting the part of jewellery as unexplained. The ITAT has also endorsed the aforesaid view. Learned counsel for appellant Ms. Kapila submitted that there was no basis for the Assessing Officer to accept the ownership of the gold jewellery to the extent of 400 grams only as " reasonable allowance" and treat the remaining jewellery of Rs. 506 .900 as unexplained. She also submitted that another glaring fact ignored by the Assessing Officer as well as other authorities was that as the department had conducted a search of all the financial dealings which were within his knowledge and no paper or document was found to indicate that this jewellery belonged to the appellant and that it was undisclosed income of the assessment year 2006 -07 . In a search operation, no scope is left with the tax department to make addition on subjective guess work, conjectures and surmises. It was also argued that jewellery is " streedhan" of the assessee's wife, evidenced in the form of declaration which was furnished by mother- in-law of the asse....