2026 (5) TMI 1766

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e assessment order passed by the Ld AO. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 331197 out of Rs. 658056 on account of value of 141.07 gms of jewellery seized at the time of search. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) accepted that the part jewellery found also belongs to the married sister of the appellant living at London as per her confirmation of 300 gms but accepted only 70 gms belongs to her without any basis. 4. The order of Ld CIT is against law, facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify or delete all or any of the Grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing of appeal. 3. Although the Assessee has taken four grounds of appeal but ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n view of the CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994 and considered the balance jewellery of 141.07 grams as unexplained. The AO accordingly made addition of Rs. 6,58,056/- to the income of the assessee u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant reiterated the submissions filed before the AO. The appellant stated that the sister of the assessee though living in London, used to keep valuable jewellery with relatives (parents) so that unnecessary hardship of carrying the jewellery back home time and again can be avoided. The appellant filed confirmation of sister of the assessee i.e. Nikita Gupta before the AO with respect to ownership of 300 grams of Jewellery out of jewellery seized duri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....also submits that the CBDT Instruction No. 1994 dated 11-5-1994 does not bar the retention of gold jewellery and ornaments above 500 per lady. The assessee has affluent status and customs and practices of the community also permits for holding greater quantity of jewellery. The Assessee and her spouse has declared substantial taxable income year after year and therefore the status of the assessee cannot be doubted and thus retention of high jewellery is plausible and a valid explanation for such keeping of gold ornaments accumulated over years and received by way of gifts from other family members and relatives at the time of their marriage and several occasions thereafter". From the reading of the above judgment of the Ld. Jurisdi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of CBDT instruction No. 1916 dated 11.5.1994 after allowing 500 gms of jewellery to each married lady in the family and 100 gms for the gents. Since the instructions of the CBDT on this issue is very clear, therefore, we find no reason to make any inference in the findings given by the Assessing Officer and the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Thus, Assessee's appeal on this ground is dismissed. 7. The Assessee has also raised ground against the findings given by the Ld. CIT(A) rejecting the claim of 300 gms of gold jewellery to the sister of the Assessee who in an affidavit has clearly stated that the said jewellery belongs other but the Ld. CIT(A) without giving any speaking order has allowed the benefit to the ....