We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record
carefully. In the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat
High Court relied upon by the assessee, the scope of the circular bearing no.
1916 has been considered. It is true that this circular was issued by the Board
guiding its officials not to seize gold jewellery, if it is found to the extent
of 500 grams and claimed to be of a married lady. Similarly, to the extent of
250 grams claimed to be belonging of a unmarried lady and 100 grams claimed to
be belonging of male member, than no seizure is to be affected.
The Tribunal in the past had adopted an approach in following the circular and giving benefit to the assessee even if explaining the source in respect of the jewellery being held by the family member. The simple reason for this is that in day-to-day human life, it is quite impossible that every individual would keep the purchase bills intact for a long period under expectation that some Income Tax Officer will ask for this bill. Similarly, on customary occasions when ornaments are gifted to the ladies, no would ask for preparation of gift did etc. which has to be used as an evidence. Small items were received at different social functions without supporting any evidence. Faced with this situation, tribunal adopting a pragmatic approach considered that if jewellery to the extent mentioned in the circular is found without any evidence substantiating the source than to that extent, the jewellery should be treated as “explained”. The observation of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in this connection is worth to read :-
“As can be seen from the impugned order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has referred to the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No. 1916 and observed that in an earlier decision of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has accepted the applicability of the circular and has held that having regard to the circular and size of the family, the ornaments to the extent specified in the circular should be accepted as reasonable. The Tribunal, accordingly, found that the jewellery held by the assessee and his family members was well within the limit laid down under the Central Board of Direct Taxes circular and, accordingly, deleted the whole addition on the ground that the jewellery held by each of the family members was below the limits specified in the said circular.
Though it is rue that the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No. 1916, dated May 11,1994, lays down guidelines for seizure of jewellery and ornaments in the course of search, the same takes into account the quantity of jewellery which would generally be held by the family members of an assessee belonging to an ordinary Hindu household. The approach adopted by the Tribunal in following the said circular and giving benefit to the assessee, even for explaining the source in respect of the jewellery being held by the family is in I.T.A .No-530/Del./2010 7 consonance with the general practice in the Hindu families whereby jewellery is gifted by the relatives and friends at the time of social functions, viz. marriages, birthdays, marriage anniversary and other festivals. These gifts are customary and customs prevailing in a society cannot be ignored. Thus, although the circular had been issued for the purpose of non-seizure of jewellery during the course of search, the basis for the same recognizes customs prevailing in the Hindu society. In the circumstances, unless the Revenue shows anything to the contrary, it can safely be presumed that the source to the extent of the jewellery stated in the circular stands explained. Thus, the approach adopted by the Tribunal in considering the extent of jewellery specified under the said circular to be a reasonable quantity, cannot be faulted with. In the circumstances, it is not possible to state that the Tribunal has committed any legal error so as to give rise to a question of law.”
SHRI G.D. AGARWAL, AND SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JJ.
Appellant by: Sh. Sudesh Garg,Sr. DR
Respondent by: Sh. S.P.Agarwal, Adv
ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV, JM
The revenue is in appeal before us against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-I, New Delhi dated 12.11.2009 passed for AY 2006-07.
2. The revenue has raised four grounds of appeal out of them, 1 & 4 are general in nature. They do not require any specific finding to be recorded hence they are rejected. In ground no 2 & 3, the grievance of revenue is that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the additions of Rs. 1,89,983/- and Rs. 14,24,426/- which were added by the A.O on account of value of unexplained jewellery found in the lockers at the time of search.
3. The brief facts of the case are that a Search & Seizure operation was carried out at the residential premises of the assessee on 09.12.2005. During the course of search, it reveals that assessee was having two bank lockers bearing Nos.-477 & 501 with Allahabad Bank, Anand Lok, New Delhi. Locker no. 501 was in the joint name of assessee with her husband, Dr. S.P.Agarwal. Locker no. 477 was in the joint name of the assessee with her son Sh. Bipin Agarwal. On inspection of the locker, jewellery having 986.650 grams valued at 7,45,658/- was found in locker No. 501. Similarly, jewellery of 3134.400 grams valued at Rs. 23,96,100/- was found in locker no-477. During the assessment proceedings, Ld. Assessing Officer has directed the assessee to explain the source of acquisition of gold jewellery found in the lockers.
4. The assessee contended that in locker No. 501, total jewellery was found 986.650 grams. It was valued at Rs. 7,45,658/-. Her husband has filed a revised return and offer a sum of Rs. 5,64,675/- for taxation on account of investment in the jewellery found in the locker. If the rate taken for valuing the jewellery at the time of search is appliedcompleted to the amount offered by husband then it would come out that he had covered 747.181 grams of jewellery. The balance is 239.469 grams having value of Rs. 1,89,983/-. It should be treated as belonging to her husband because major part of the jewellery has been owned by him. The Ld. A.O did not accept the contention of the assessee and confirmed the addition i.e value of Rs. 7,45,658/-, the total jewellery found in the locker.
On appeal, Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition on the ground that it can be accepted that this balance jewellery belongs to Dr. S.P. Agarwal.
5. Ld. DR while impugning the order, the Ld. CIT(A) contended that Ld. First Appellate Authority has not assigned any reason how this jewellery belongs to Dr. S.P.Agarwal. Ld. CIT(A) has not considered, whether any jewellery was already considered as explained in the hands of Dr. S.P.Agarwal while determining his taxable income or not.
6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the complete details of the jewellery found and how it has been allocated to various family members were submitted by the assessee. In the statement recorded at the time of search, it was contended that jewellery lying in the locker belongs to various family members. The assessee also relied upon the circular issued by the Board bearing No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994. He pointed out that this circular was issued by the Board guiding its officials not to effect seizure at the time of search of the jewellery found at the time of search, if it was claimed that it belongs to a married lady than upto the 500 grams of jewellery found, should not be seized. Similar yardstick has been provided upto the 250 grams per unmarried lady and 100 grams per male member of the family. He further submitted that this circular has been considered by the Tribunal as well as by the Hon'ble High Court and it was considered as a guiding factor for treating the jewellery to this extent as explained, even if no documentary evidence was submitted by the assessee. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chadda vs ITO rendered in ITA No. 274/2011. And judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Rattan Lal Vyapari Lal Jain reported in 339 ITR 351. He placed on record copies of both these judgements. The assessee also filed a paper book containing 29 pages wherein she has placed on record, copy of the panchnama, her statement recorded at the time of search, copies of the revised return filed by Dr. S.P.Agarwal his assessment order for AY 2006-07 and family chart of the assessee.
7. In locker No 477, jewellery having 3134.400 grams, valued at Rs. 23,96,100/- was found. The assessee contended that she has offered a sum of Rs. 5,64,675/- for taxation benefit of this amount to be given qua, the additions made on account of unexplained investment in the jewellery found in locker no- 477. She further contended that benefit of 500 grams jewellery be given to her, as per the Board’s circular. The balance jewellery to belongs to other family members, namely Sh. Bipin Agarwal and his wife Smt. Ritu Agarwal, Sh. Charchit Agarwal and his wife Smt. Kanika Agarwal (both sons and daughters-in-law) and three children of both the sons. Ld. A.O did not accept any contention of the assessee. He only gave credit of 500 grams jewellery as per Board’s circular and the value of the balance jewellery at Rs. 19,71,100/- has been added to her income.
On appeal, Ld. CIT(A) has accepted the contentions of the assessee and deleted the addition.
8. Ld. DR has reiterated his contention, as were raised qua, the jewellery found in locker no-501. He pointed out that there is no evidence on the record to suggest that the family members were having source of taxable income for acquiring this jewellery. The circular issued by the Board is for internal purpose and it is just a guideline for not affecting the seizure. It does not absolve the assessee to explain the source of jewellery of even 500 grams attributed to each married lady. The assessee has to explain the source of this 500 grams also.
9. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. In the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court relied upon by the assessee, the scope of the circular bearing no. 1916 has been considered. It is true that this circular was issued by the Board guiding its officials not to seize gold jewellery, if it is found to the extent of 500 grams and claimed to be of a married lady. Similarly, to the extent of 250 grams claimed to be belonging of a unmarried lady and 100 grams claimed to be belonging of male member, than no seizure is to be affected. The Tribunal in the past had adopted an approach in following the circular and giving benefit to the assessee even if explaining the source in respect of the jewellery being held by the family member. The simple reason for this is that in day-to-day human life, it is quite impossible that every individual would keep the purchase bills intact for a long period under expectation that some Income Tax Officer will ask for this bill. Similarly, on customary occasions when ornaments are gifted to the ladies, no would ask for preparation of gift did etc. which has to be used as an evidence. Small items were received at different social functions without supporting any evidence. Faced with this situation, tribunal adopting a pragmatic approach considered that if jewellery to the extent mentioned in the circular is found without any evidence substantiating the source than to that extent, the jewellery should be treated as “explained”. The observation of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in this connection is worth to read :-
“As can be seen from the impugned order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has referred to the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No. 1916 and observed that in an earlier decision of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has accepted the applicability of the circular and has held that having regard to the circular and size of the family, the ornaments to the extent specified in the circular should be accepted as reasonable. The Tribunal, accordingly, found that the jewellery held by the assessee and his family members was well within the limit laid down under the Central Board of Direct Taxes circular and, accordingly, deleted the whole addition on the ground that the jewellery held by each of the family members was below the limits specified in the said circular.
Though it is rue that the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No. 1916, dated May 11,1994, lays down guidelines for seizure of jewellery and ornaments in the course of search, the same takes into account the quantity of jewellery which would generally be held by the family members of an assessee belonging to an ordinary Hindu household. The approach adopted by the Tribunal in following the said circular and giving benefit to the assessee, even for explaining the source in respect of the jewellery being held by the family is in I.T.A .No-530/Del./2010 7 consonance with the general practice in the Hindu families whereby jewellery is gifted by the relatives and friends at the time of social functions, viz. marriages, birthdays, marriage anniversary and other festivals. These gifts are customary and customs prevailing in a society cannot be ignored. Thus, although the circular had been issued for the purpose of non-seizure of jewellery during the course of search, the basis for the same recognizes customs prevailing in the Hindu society. In the circumstances, unless the Revenue shows anything to the contrary, it can safely be presumed that the source to the extent of the jewellery stated in the circular stands explained. Thus, the approach adopted by the Tribunal in considering the extent of jewellery specified under the said circular to be a reasonable quantity, cannot be faulted with. In the circumstances, it is not possible to state that the Tribunal has committed any legal error so as to give rise to a question of law.”
10. In the light of above discussion, let us consider the facts of the present case. In the first locker total jewellery was found 986.650 grams. Dr. S.P. Agarwal has paid a tax of Rs. 5,64,675/- on account of “unexplained investment” in the jewellery found in the locker. At the time of search, the jewellery was valued @ Rs. 755.74 per gram. If this rate is adopted qua, the surrendered amount than it will take care of 747.181 gram. The balance is 239.469 gram. It was contended that this jewellery to be treated as belonging of Dr. S.P.Agarwal. Ld. First Appellate Authority has accepted this. In order to eliminate the apprehension raised by the Ld. DR that Dr. S.P.Agarwal might have independently claimed the benefit of circular in his assessment, we have perused the assessment order of Dr. S.P.Agarwal for AY 2006-07 available on page 18 of the paper book. From the perusal of the assessment order, it reveals that he has not claimed benefit of circular qua any jewellery. Therefore, on the basis of the circular 100 grams out of 239.469 grams is to be treated as “explained”. It may be related to Dr. S.P.Agarwal. The balance 139.469 gram is to be considered as “unexplained”.
Value of this jewellery to be added in the income of the assessee. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is modified on this point and A.O is directed to add value of 139.469 grams @ Rs. 755.74 per gram.
11. With regard to the jewellery found in lockerNo-477 is concerned. The total jewellery is 3134.400 grams. The assessee is following members in the family
Value of jewellery surrendered by assessee- 738.570 grams is Rs. 5,64,674/-. The total jewellery treated to be “explained” one is 2888 grams (roughly 2900 grams).
12. In view of the above working, the assessee at the most can claim jewellery to the extent of 2900 grams as “explained” as per the circular. The value of the rest of the jewellery is to be treated as “unexplained”. Ld. First Appellate Authority has erred in deleting the total value of jewellery. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is modified to the above extent. Ld. A.O is directed to add the value of 234 grams @ Rs. 755 per gram in the total income of the assessee. Thus, the total addition required to be made by the Ld. Assessing Officer is value of jewellery i.e 139 gms + 234 gms by taking the value at 755 per gm.
13. In view of the above discussion, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 12.10.2012.
Share |
The Tribunal in the past had adopted an approach in following the circular and giving benefit to the assessee even if explaining the source in respect of the jewellery being held by the family member. The simple reason for this is that in day-to-day human life, it is quite impossible that every individual would keep the purchase bills intact for a long period under expectation that some Income Tax Officer will ask for this bill. Similarly, on customary occasions when ornaments are gifted to the ladies, no would ask for preparation of gift did etc. which has to be used as an evidence. Small items were received at different social functions without supporting any evidence. Faced with this situation, tribunal adopting a pragmatic approach considered that if jewellery to the extent mentioned in the circular is found without any evidence substantiating the source than to that extent, the jewellery should be treated as “explained”. The observation of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in this connection is worth to read :-
“As can be seen from the impugned order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has referred to the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No. 1916 and observed that in an earlier decision of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has accepted the applicability of the circular and has held that having regard to the circular and size of the family, the ornaments to the extent specified in the circular should be accepted as reasonable. The Tribunal, accordingly, found that the jewellery held by the assessee and his family members was well within the limit laid down under the Central Board of Direct Taxes circular and, accordingly, deleted the whole addition on the ground that the jewellery held by each of the family members was below the limits specified in the said circular.
Though it is rue that the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No. 1916, dated May 11,1994, lays down guidelines for seizure of jewellery and ornaments in the course of search, the same takes into account the quantity of jewellery which would generally be held by the family members of an assessee belonging to an ordinary Hindu household. The approach adopted by the Tribunal in following the said circular and giving benefit to the assessee, even for explaining the source in respect of the jewellery being held by the family is in I.T.A .No-530/Del./2010 7 consonance with the general practice in the Hindu families whereby jewellery is gifted by the relatives and friends at the time of social functions, viz. marriages, birthdays, marriage anniversary and other festivals. These gifts are customary and customs prevailing in a society cannot be ignored. Thus, although the circular had been issued for the purpose of non-seizure of jewellery during the course of search, the basis for the same recognizes customs prevailing in the Hindu society. In the circumstances, unless the Revenue shows anything to the contrary, it can safely be presumed that the source to the extent of the jewellery stated in the circular stands explained. Thus, the approach adopted by the Tribunal in considering the extent of jewellery specified under the said circular to be a reasonable quantity, cannot be faulted with. In the circumstances, it is not possible to state that the Tribunal has committed any legal error so as to give rise to a question of law.”
ITAT, DELHI
Assistant Commissioner of
Income Tax, Cent. Circle 12, Delhi
Versus Raj Kumari Aggarwal,
No. – I.T.A No.-530/Del./2010
Dated October 12, 2012
Appellant by: Sh. Sudesh Garg,Sr. DR
Respondent by: Sh. S.P.Agarwal, Adv
ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV, JM
The revenue is in appeal before us against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-I, New Delhi dated 12.11.2009 passed for AY 2006-07.
2. The revenue has raised four grounds of appeal out of them, 1 & 4 are general in nature. They do not require any specific finding to be recorded hence they are rejected. In ground no 2 & 3, the grievance of revenue is that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the additions of Rs. 1,89,983/- and Rs. 14,24,426/- which were added by the A.O on account of value of unexplained jewellery found in the lockers at the time of search.
3. The brief facts of the case are that a Search & Seizure operation was carried out at the residential premises of the assessee on 09.12.2005. During the course of search, it reveals that assessee was having two bank lockers bearing Nos.-477 & 501 with Allahabad Bank, Anand Lok, New Delhi. Locker no. 501 was in the joint name of assessee with her husband, Dr. S.P.Agarwal. Locker no. 477 was in the joint name of the assessee with her son Sh. Bipin Agarwal. On inspection of the locker, jewellery having 986.650 grams valued at 7,45,658/- was found in locker No. 501. Similarly, jewellery of 3134.400 grams valued at Rs. 23,96,100/- was found in locker no-477. During the assessment proceedings, Ld. Assessing Officer has directed the assessee to explain the source of acquisition of gold jewellery found in the lockers.
4. The assessee contended that in locker No. 501, total jewellery was found 986.650 grams. It was valued at Rs. 7,45,658/-. Her husband has filed a revised return and offer a sum of Rs. 5,64,675/- for taxation on account of investment in the jewellery found in the locker. If the rate taken for valuing the jewellery at the time of search is appliedcompleted to the amount offered by husband then it would come out that he had covered 747.181 grams of jewellery. The balance is 239.469 grams having value of Rs. 1,89,983/-. It should be treated as belonging to her husband because major part of the jewellery has been owned by him. The Ld. A.O did not accept the contention of the assessee and confirmed the addition i.e value of Rs. 7,45,658/-, the total jewellery found in the locker.
On appeal, Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition on the ground that it can be accepted that this balance jewellery belongs to Dr. S.P. Agarwal.
5. Ld. DR while impugning the order, the Ld. CIT(A) contended that Ld. First Appellate Authority has not assigned any reason how this jewellery belongs to Dr. S.P.Agarwal. Ld. CIT(A) has not considered, whether any jewellery was already considered as explained in the hands of Dr. S.P.Agarwal while determining his taxable income or not.
6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the complete details of the jewellery found and how it has been allocated to various family members were submitted by the assessee. In the statement recorded at the time of search, it was contended that jewellery lying in the locker belongs to various family members. The assessee also relied upon the circular issued by the Board bearing No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994. He pointed out that this circular was issued by the Board guiding its officials not to effect seizure at the time of search of the jewellery found at the time of search, if it was claimed that it belongs to a married lady than upto the 500 grams of jewellery found, should not be seized. Similar yardstick has been provided upto the 250 grams per unmarried lady and 100 grams per male member of the family. He further submitted that this circular has been considered by the Tribunal as well as by the Hon'ble High Court and it was considered as a guiding factor for treating the jewellery to this extent as explained, even if no documentary evidence was submitted by the assessee. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chadda vs ITO rendered in ITA No. 274/2011. And judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Rattan Lal Vyapari Lal Jain reported in 339 ITR 351. He placed on record copies of both these judgements. The assessee also filed a paper book containing 29 pages wherein she has placed on record, copy of the panchnama, her statement recorded at the time of search, copies of the revised return filed by Dr. S.P.Agarwal his assessment order for AY 2006-07 and family chart of the assessee.
7. In locker No 477, jewellery having 3134.400 grams, valued at Rs. 23,96,100/- was found. The assessee contended that she has offered a sum of Rs. 5,64,675/- for taxation benefit of this amount to be given qua, the additions made on account of unexplained investment in the jewellery found in locker no- 477. She further contended that benefit of 500 grams jewellery be given to her, as per the Board’s circular. The balance jewellery to belongs to other family members, namely Sh. Bipin Agarwal and his wife Smt. Ritu Agarwal, Sh. Charchit Agarwal and his wife Smt. Kanika Agarwal (both sons and daughters-in-law) and three children of both the sons. Ld. A.O did not accept any contention of the assessee. He only gave credit of 500 grams jewellery as per Board’s circular and the value of the balance jewellery at Rs. 19,71,100/- has been added to her income.
On appeal, Ld. CIT(A) has accepted the contentions of the assessee and deleted the addition.
8. Ld. DR has reiterated his contention, as were raised qua, the jewellery found in locker no-501. He pointed out that there is no evidence on the record to suggest that the family members were having source of taxable income for acquiring this jewellery. The circular issued by the Board is for internal purpose and it is just a guideline for not affecting the seizure. It does not absolve the assessee to explain the source of jewellery of even 500 grams attributed to each married lady. The assessee has to explain the source of this 500 grams also.
9. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. In the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court relied upon by the assessee, the scope of the circular bearing no. 1916 has been considered. It is true that this circular was issued by the Board guiding its officials not to seize gold jewellery, if it is found to the extent of 500 grams and claimed to be of a married lady. Similarly, to the extent of 250 grams claimed to be belonging of a unmarried lady and 100 grams claimed to be belonging of male member, than no seizure is to be affected. The Tribunal in the past had adopted an approach in following the circular and giving benefit to the assessee even if explaining the source in respect of the jewellery being held by the family member. The simple reason for this is that in day-to-day human life, it is quite impossible that every individual would keep the purchase bills intact for a long period under expectation that some Income Tax Officer will ask for this bill. Similarly, on customary occasions when ornaments are gifted to the ladies, no would ask for preparation of gift did etc. which has to be used as an evidence. Small items were received at different social functions without supporting any evidence. Faced with this situation, tribunal adopting a pragmatic approach considered that if jewellery to the extent mentioned in the circular is found without any evidence substantiating the source than to that extent, the jewellery should be treated as “explained”. The observation of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in this connection is worth to read :-
“As can be seen from the impugned order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has referred to the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No. 1916 and observed that in an earlier decision of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has accepted the applicability of the circular and has held that having regard to the circular and size of the family, the ornaments to the extent specified in the circular should be accepted as reasonable. The Tribunal, accordingly, found that the jewellery held by the assessee and his family members was well within the limit laid down under the Central Board of Direct Taxes circular and, accordingly, deleted the whole addition on the ground that the jewellery held by each of the family members was below the limits specified in the said circular.
Though it is rue that the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No. 1916, dated May 11,1994, lays down guidelines for seizure of jewellery and ornaments in the course of search, the same takes into account the quantity of jewellery which would generally be held by the family members of an assessee belonging to an ordinary Hindu household. The approach adopted by the Tribunal in following the said circular and giving benefit to the assessee, even for explaining the source in respect of the jewellery being held by the family is in I.T.A .No-530/Del./2010 7 consonance with the general practice in the Hindu families whereby jewellery is gifted by the relatives and friends at the time of social functions, viz. marriages, birthdays, marriage anniversary and other festivals. These gifts are customary and customs prevailing in a society cannot be ignored. Thus, although the circular had been issued for the purpose of non-seizure of jewellery during the course of search, the basis for the same recognizes customs prevailing in the Hindu society. In the circumstances, unless the Revenue shows anything to the contrary, it can safely be presumed that the source to the extent of the jewellery stated in the circular stands explained. Thus, the approach adopted by the Tribunal in considering the extent of jewellery specified under the said circular to be a reasonable quantity, cannot be faulted with. In the circumstances, it is not possible to state that the Tribunal has committed any legal error so as to give rise to a question of law.”
10. In the light of above discussion, let us consider the facts of the present case. In the first locker total jewellery was found 986.650 grams. Dr. S.P. Agarwal has paid a tax of Rs. 5,64,675/- on account of “unexplained investment” in the jewellery found in the locker. At the time of search, the jewellery was valued @ Rs. 755.74 per gram. If this rate is adopted qua, the surrendered amount than it will take care of 747.181 gram. The balance is 239.469 gram. It was contended that this jewellery to be treated as belonging of Dr. S.P.Agarwal. Ld. First Appellate Authority has accepted this. In order to eliminate the apprehension raised by the Ld. DR that Dr. S.P.Agarwal might have independently claimed the benefit of circular in his assessment, we have perused the assessment order of Dr. S.P.Agarwal for AY 2006-07 available on page 18 of the paper book. From the perusal of the assessment order, it reveals that he has not claimed benefit of circular qua any jewellery. Therefore, on the basis of the circular 100 grams out of 239.469 grams is to be treated as “explained”. It may be related to Dr. S.P.Agarwal. The balance 139.469 gram is to be considered as “unexplained”.
Value of this jewellery to be added in the income of the assessee. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is modified on this point and A.O is directed to add value of 139.469 grams @ Rs. 755.74 per gram.
11. With regard to the jewellery found in lockerNo-477 is concerned. The total jewellery is 3134.400 grams. The assessee is following members in the family
S.No.
|
Name
|
Relationship
|
Shares in Gold (Grams)
|
| 1. | Smt. Raj Kumari Agarwal | Assessee | 500 |
| 2. | Sh. Bipin Agarwal | Son | 100 |
| 3. | Smt. Ritu Agarwal | Daughter-in-law | 500 |
| 4. | Sh. Charchit Agarwal | Son | 100 |
| 5. | Smt. Kanika Agarwal | Daughter-in-law | 500 |
| 3@150=450 | |||
| Total | 2150 |
Value of jewellery surrendered by assessee- 738.570 grams is Rs. 5,64,674/-. The total jewellery treated to be “explained” one is 2888 grams (roughly 2900 grams).
12. In view of the above working, the assessee at the most can claim jewellery to the extent of 2900 grams as “explained” as per the circular. The value of the rest of the jewellery is to be treated as “unexplained”. Ld. First Appellate Authority has erred in deleting the total value of jewellery. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is modified to the above extent. Ld. A.O is directed to add the value of 234 grams @ Rs. 755 per gram in the total income of the assessee. Thus, the total addition required to be made by the Ld. Assessing Officer is value of jewellery i.e 139 gms + 234 gms by taking the value at 755 per gm.
13. In view of the above discussion, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 12.10.2012.
Share |
Posts
0 comments :
Post a Comment