TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 1405
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)4, Kanpur erred to confirm the action of the assessing officer to make an addition of Rs. 20,44,870/- by invoking the provisions of section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act by ignoring the plea that jewellery belonging to the daughter is also kept in the house. The addition confirmed by Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-4, Kanpur is unjustified, unwarranted based on surmises, conjectures, and is bad in law. 3. That on the facts and in law and under the circumstances, the issue of the penalty notice under section 271AAB and also the interest charged under section 234A/B/C/D is thus illegal and bad in law." Unexplained Jewellery - Rs. 20,44,870/-: (1/3rd of Rs. 61,34,610/-) 3. Keeping in view the similarity of facts, the adjudication in the case of Sh. Ankur Sharma stands mutatis mutandis. 4. For the sake of ready reference, the order of Sh. Ankur Sharma in ITA No. 1843/Del/2022 vide order dated 03.10.2023 is reproduced hereunder: "Unexplained Jewellery - Rs. 20,44,870/-: (1/3rd of Rs. 61,34,610/-) 3. Proceedings before the Assessing Officer: "During the course of search & seizure operation conducted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 20,44,870/- (1/3 share) is added to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The remaining amount is added in the income of Sh. Ganga Saran Sharma, father of assessee and Sh. Ankur Sharma, Brother of assessee. 4. Proceedings before the ld. CIT(A): "Before the ld. CIT(A), the appellant submitted that it had been explained that the major amount of gold ornaments were inherited by Shri Ganga Saran Sharma on the death of his mother, besides Shri Ganga Saran Sharma was married in equally rich and business class family and received gold jewellery in marriage. Subsequently, both the sons namely Shri Ankur Sharma and Shri Ankit Sharma also got married in equally wellplaced business class families and received gold ornaments in marriage and also in subsequent ceremonial functions that took place in both the families. It is customary to offer gold items and silver wares in marriage/ceremonial functions to the daughters in the family, specially to the married daughters. The family is in the business since generations and doing good business, besides the family has established a charitable Hospital. That proves....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the jewellery belonging to his sister was also kept in the residential premise of the appellant. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that this submission as an afterthought and since the same was held to be devoid of merit, the arguments of the assessee were summarily dismissed. In effect, the order of the AO has been confirmed." 5. The addition of Rs. 61,34,610/- has been made in the hands of Sh. Ganga Saran Sharma, the patriarch of the family and the siblings Sh. Ankit Sharma and Sh. Ankur Sharma at the rate of 33.33% each. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 7. During the hearing before us, the ld. AR relied on the submissions and the arguments taken up before the revenue authorities and the ld. CIT DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 8. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. We have gone through the facts of the case and the judgments of various Courts on this issue. 9. At the outset, we hold that CBDT's instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994 and press release dated 01.12.2016 pertains to seizure of jewellery. It postulates that by going through the archetypal Indian fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the aforesaid submissions we are of the view that addition made is totally arbitrary and is not founded on any cogent basis or evidence. We have to keep in mind that the assessee was married for more than 25-30 years. The jewellery in question is not very substantial. 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 "stree dhan" 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." 13. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case ....