2017 (5) TMI 1840

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 2. While admitting the appeals, this Court framed the following substantial question of law: "(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was justified in not allowing the benefit of CBDT Instruction dated 11.05.1994 and ignoring the law laid down in the case of CIT v/s Kailash Chand Sharma(2005) 198 CTR 201 (Raj.), and thereby wrongly confirming the addition of Rs. 6,77,767/- on account of the jewellery and gold ornaments found during the search? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was justified in partly sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,14,805/- on account of the alle....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... at exhibited at Annex. A-1/26, A-2 and A-15". 5. Counsel for the appellant contended that he is required to be granted benefit of 1994 circular, which provides as under: "Instances of seizure of jewellery of small quantity in the course of operation under section 132 have come to the notice of the Board. The question of a common approach to situation 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 to be seized. (ii) In the case of a person not assessed to wealth tax gold jewellery and ornamen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... there is no dispute that assessee and his wife also in their statement at the time of search on 12th Nov., 1997 told that the jewellery was received in the marriage and some jewellery was also received in other ceremonies from time to time. The Tribunal also found that the benefit of CBDT instructions, dt. 11th May, 1994, was not allowed to two ladies, namely, Smt. Sarita Devi and Smt. Tara Devi, mother of the assessee on the ground that the said instruction is not applicable in the case of a person, who is being assessed to wealth-tax and therefore, the exemption was allowed only to the extent of gold ornaments and jewellery shown in the WT return. After considering the fact that both the ladies were assessed to wealth-tax much prior to t....