Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's return for AY 2021-22 was processed under Section 143(1). A search under Section 132 revealed jewellery of 469.080 grams, leading to an addition of Rs. 22,72,405/- as undisclosed investment under Section 69B by the AO. The CIT(A) subsequently confirmed this addition.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 24-day delay in appeal filing and deleted the addition made under Section 69B. It held that the jewellery, being 469.080 grams, was within the 500-gram limit for a normal housewife as per CBDT Instruction No. 1916 and could be considered Streedhan from accounted sources, especially given the assessee's substantial income of over Rs. 12.25 lakhs.
Key Issues
Whether an addition for undisclosed jewellery found during a search, and claimed as Streedhan within CBDT prescribed limits, is justified under Section 69B of the Income Tax Act.
Sections Cited
139, 143(1), 132, 143(2), 142(1), 143(3), 69B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY
O R D E R The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A), Kolkata-27, dated 05.03.2025 passed for Assessment Year 2021-2022.
The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 24 days. Though the assessee has not filed any condonation application nor any affidavit, however, looking to the facts of the case and the issue involved therein, I am of the view that the delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned, which has also not been objected by the ld. Sr. DR. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.
The sole issue involved in the appeal of the assessee is with regard to addition made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on account of alleged undisclosed jewellery.
Facts in brief are that are that the assessee had filed original return of income u/s 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the relevant assessment year on 14.02.2022 declaring total income at Rs.12,25,190/- and was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. A search & seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 25.09.2020 at various premises of the Agarwal Group of cases. The assesse, a close associate of the said Agarwal Group, was also covered under the search & seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act. Consequent to the search, the Assessment Year 2021- 22 being the search year, the return of income was selected for Scrutiny for selection of cases for compulsory scrutiny and accordingly, a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 17.02.2022 was issued by the AO and duly served upon the assessee. Also, statutory notice u/s 142 (1) dated 22.01.2022 along with the detailed questionnaire. The assessee appeared and furnished details, submissions & explanations on issues which emerged out of seized/impounded materials. Subsequently, the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 31.03.2022 determining a total income of Rs. 34,97,595/- making addition on one ground on account of undisclosed investment u/s 69B of the Act amounting to Rs. 22,72,405/-.
Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has also confirmed the addition made by the AO.
Now, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal.
Ld. AR submitted that there was a search in the premises of the assessee on 25.09.2020 in the course of search jewellery to an extent of 469.080 grams had been found. It was the submission that the assessee had categorically claimed that the said jewellery was not liable to be treated as unexplained insofar as the same was within the prescribed quantity as made by the CBDT in its Instruction No.1916 dated 11.05.1994. It was the submission of the ld.AR that the said circular was a guideline to the departmental officers in respect of the seizure of jewellery. It was the submission that the fact that the CBDT has held that there should be no seizure of these jewellery, which to be presumed that these jewellery is out of known source and the assessee had source for the same. Ld. AR further submitted that this jewellery was out of the Streedhan received by the assessee’s wife. It was the submission that even the ld.CIT(A) did not accept the contention and confirmed the addition.
On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR submitted that the Circular relied upon by the assessee was in respect of seizure of jewllery in the case of search. It was also submitted by the ld. Sr. DR that for the assessee to prove that the jewellery had been purchased from the accounted source. It was also submitted that the assessee was also not providing any proof that the jewellery was received as Streedhan by the assessee’s wife.
I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. The assessment order clearly shows that the said jewellery was found at the residence of the assessee. It is also seen that such jewellery was not seized. It is also noticed that the total jewellery found was only 469.080 gms. The AO has taken the stand that the assessee and his wife have never disclosed any jewellery acquired by any manner or from any sources whatsoever in their respective income tax returns nor wealth tax return has been filed by them. The jewellery to the extent of 469.080 gms does not call for the filing of wealth tax return. It is also well known fact that during the marriages, the bride normally receives gold jewellery in the form of Streedhan. The assessment order clearly shows that other than the value of these jewelries, no other addition has been made. Further the assessment order talks of substantial cash receipts etc. but all of them have been accepted and no addition has been made in the hands of the assessee. The fact that the CBDT has provided for certain quantity of gold jewellery (500 gms) to be not seized is basically after considering the fact that a normal housewife would have the said quantity of gold jewellery considering the standard of living. In the present case, the assessee has filed his return showing income more than Rs.12,25,000/- for the impugned assessment year. This is not a case where the assessee is from the low income group. In view of the above, it cannot be disbelieved that the jewellery found at the time of search was of Streedhan of the assessee’s wife and the same were out of the accounted source of the assessee. Accordingly, the addition as made by the AO and as confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) stands deleted and appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.