REENA GOEL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

Facts shows that on 15.10.2013 search took place on SRM Group of cases including the assessee. Therefore, the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. During the course of search jewellery worth Rs.1,45,79,924/- was found. The assessment under Section 144 of the Act was passed by the ld. Assessing Officer on 20.05.2016 at the total income of Rs. 2,84,44,615/- wherein the addition of Rs. 1,45,79,924/- was made on account of unexplained jewellery. 4. The assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT (Appeals). The CIT (Appeals) deleted the addition to the extent of Rs. 1,35,58,230/-, which tallied with the valuation report of the Govt. approved valuer, but sustained the balance addition of Rs. 14,10,296/-. Therefore, the assessee is in appeal against this addition. 5. The only contention of the assessee is that the ld. CIT (Appeals) should have granted the benefit of CBDT Circular No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994, which states that if jewellery found in possession of a married lady, un- married lady and male member of a family is to the extent of 500 gms., 250 gms. and 100 gms. Each the Revenue would not question source and acquisition of the same. He submitted that if the assessee is granted the benefit of this Circular, the addition would not sustain. The assessee submitted that if the benefit of the jewellery holding by her husband, un- married daughter and a son is granted, then the addition is wrongly confirmed. He referred to the decision of various High Courts on this proposition. 6. The ld. DR submitted that the ld. CIT (Appeals) has already taken the valuation report into account and, therefore, no further relief is required.

We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994 clearly provides that the CBDT has keeping in view the status of the family, customs and practices of the community, issued the above said Circular. Therefore, one has to go with the weight and not with the value of the jewellery as the same may fluctuate over the years. The above relief is also not subject to over and above the jewellery which has been accounted for by the assessee. It is with respect to the jewellery found during the course of search for which acquisition and source cannot be explained by the assessee and therefore CBDT has mandated maximum amount of weight of jewellery which would not be questioned with respect to marital status and gender status of the family members. Such is the mandate of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT Vs. Satya Narain Patni 366 ITR 325; Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in CIT Vs. Ghanshyam Dass Johri (2014) 41 taxmann.com 295; Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Ratan Vyapari Lal Jain 2 taxmann.com 997, which supports the argument of the ld. AR. Therefore, we direct the ld. Assessing Officer to grant the benefit of the above CBDT Circular to the assessee and delete the addition to that extent. Accordingly, the solitary ground of appeal