AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 44
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee was transferred to Ld. AO vide order u/s 127 of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad dated 08.02.2013. Notice u/s 142(1) dated 01.07.2014 was issued. The assessment was completed u/s 153B r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 27.02.2015 and assessed income of Rs. 33,79,234/- against the returned income of Rs. 9,25,050/- filed on 07.07.2014. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued. 2.1. Against order dated 27.02.2015 of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 21.12.2016. Assessee filed appeal before ITAT, New Delhi which was decided vide order dated 30.06.2022 in ITA No.839/Del/2017. As per directions of Hon'ble ITAT fresh opportunity was provided to the assessee vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 18.11.2022. With regard to addition made of Rs. 23,54,184/- during the proceedings assessee filed documentary evidences. 2.2 On completion of proceedings Ld. AO vide order dated 30.03.2023 made addition of Rs. 23,54,184/-. 3. Against order dated 30.03.2023 of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 28.01.2025. 4. Being aggrieved, appellant-assessee preferred present appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the eyes of law. 7. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in charging interest, more so when such interest could not be levied under the law. 8. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in passing the impugned order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard and in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 9. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. 5. Ld. Authorized Representative for the appellant-assessee at the time of hearing submitted that, ground of Appeal Nos.5 and 6 qua Section 153D were not pressed. 5.1. Ld. Authorized Representative for the appellant-assessee submitted that, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 23,54,184/- on account of unexplained investment recording incorrect facts and findings in the second round of litigation. 5.2. Ld. Departmental Authoriti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AY-2010-11), ITAT Delhi. 5.5. It was further explained to AO that about 278.550 grams was purchased by the assessee. Availability of funds together with bills were filed which are enclosed in the paper book. 5.6. In this regard, it is submitted that detailed explanation has been filed to Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) giving the break-up of jewellery received as gifts and jewellery purchased by the assessee and his wife along with the supporting evidences. These are as follows: 5.7. PB 59-60 is the copy of the detailed note on Jewellery showing to whom how much jewellery belonged. 5.8. PB 61 shows the breakup of the jewellery among the members of the family comparing the jewellery received in gifts and jewellery purchased out of savings. 5.9. PB 62 is the chart showing the details of jewellery purchased by the joint family members. It can be seen that the details of purchases made by assessee and his wife are mentioned along with the source of funds, date of purchase, value of jewellery, weight of gold, weight of stones etc. 5.10. PB 63 are the details of jewellery received as gifts by the assessee over the years on various occasions. 5.11. PB 64 is the affidavit of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ailing in the society is the basis for allowing the benefit of certain quantity of jewellery explained by the CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11-05-1994 which means that the assessee need not to explain the source of jewellery found in his possession to the extent of specified quantity treated as reasonable possession by family members of the assessee. It was further held that the said CBDT Instruction No. 1916 allowing the specific quantity as reasonable and need not to be explained, does not include the jewellery which is otherwise explained by proof of documents of acquisition as well as declared/recorded in the books of account of the assessee. Therefore, the benefit of CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11-05-1994 will not take away the benefit of the explained jewellery acquired by the assessee. 5.23. Reliance is also placed on Vibhu Aggarwal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, CC-06, New Delhi [2018] 93 taxmann.com 275 (Delhi - Trib.) wherein it has been held that Where Assessing Officer under section 694 made addition on account of jewellery found in search of assessee, since assessee belonged to a wealthy family and jewellery was received on occasions from relatives, ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, weight of stones etc. 7.5. PB 63 are the details of jewellery received as gifts by the assessee over the years on various occasions. 7.6. PB 64 is the affidavit of the assessee stating that the received approx. 870 grams of gold jewellery from his father as gifts on the occasion of his marriage and the birth of his sons. 7.7. PB 65 is the affidavit of assessee's wife stating that she received approx. 620 grams of jewellery from her father on the occasion of her marriage and the birth of her sons. 7.8. PB 66 is the affidavit of Sh. Kailash Chand i.e. assessee's father-in-law deposing that he gave 620 grams of jewellery to his daughter i.e. wife of assessee, 110 grams of gold jewellery to the assessee as well as 140 grams of gold jewellery to his grandsons i.e. sons of assessee. 7.9. PB 67-70 are the PAN, Aadhar and ITR acknowledgement of Sh. Kailash Chand i.e. father-in-law of the assessee establishing the identity and creditworthiness of the father-in-law. 7.10. PB 71-72 are the bills of the jewellery gifted by Sh. Kailash Chand. 7.11. PB 101-103 is the relevant extract of the bank statement of the assessee and his wife showing the withdrawals 7.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of wife and two children of the assessee. We further note that in appeal Ld. CIT(A) has further allowed the benefit of 600 gms. Of jewellery on account of mother and father of the assessee, holding that the same was allowable to the assessee as per the CBDT Instruction No. 1916, but however, sustained the balance addition made by the AO, vide order dated 22.12.2014, treating the balance jewellery weighting 1050 gms of gold as unexplained, without appreciating the fact that assessee belongs to a wealthy family where gifting of jewellery possessed by each of the family members; all the family members as well as the HUF were assessed to tax separately; the assessee has been married from the past 18 years, and also had two children, the jewellery was gifted/inherited to the assessee and his wife by their parents and grandparents and other relatives at the time of their marriage, and also on several occasions after that, such as birth of their two children, marriage anniversaries etc. Also some of the jewellery was purchased by assesse's wife out of the cash gifts received by her from the relatives on various occasions. We also observe that that the CBDT Instruction No. 1916 date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 assessee stating that she had given the jewellery in question to her daughter. She argued that it is a normal custom for a woman to receive jewellery in the form of marriage and other occasions such as birth of a child. Th....