Loading judgment…
Facts
A search and seizure operation was conducted on the Seth Cycle Group. During the search, gold jewellery weighing 3326.2 grams was found at the assessee's residence. The AO rejected the assessee's explanations for 1937.2 grams of gold jewellery and made an addition of Rs. 94,72,908/-. The CIT(A) granted partial relief, deleting additions for 521 grams and 450 grams, but confirmed the addition for 420 grams.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s estimation of 50% of cash being spent on household expenses was arbitrary. While acknowledging that the purchase dates back to 2014 and no invoices were found, the Tribunal found the proven cash withdrawals sufficient to cover the purchase of 840 grams. The addition was restricted to 100 grams, valuing it at Rs. 4,89,000/-.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in restricting the benefit of unexplained jewellery purchase to 50% despite sufficient cash withdrawals and an affidavit filed by the assessee.
Sections Cited
132, 69B, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Order
PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], dated 06.01.2025, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2022-23. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal
1. 1. 1. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs.20,53,800/- (out of total addition of Rs.94,72,908/-) made by the learned A.O. under section 69B read with section 115BBE on account of the alleged unexplained jewellery found on the date of search which took place on 21.10.2021 to 23.10.2021, without properly and correctly appreciating the appellant’s submissions made during the course of the assessment as well as the first appeal proceedings. That order passed by the learned CIT(A) to the extent contested hereinabove, is 2. bad in law as well as on facts.
3. Brief Facts of the Case are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on the Seth Cycle Group on 21.10.2021. The assessee, a member of the group, was covered under the search during the search, gold jewellery weighing 3326.2 grams was found at the residence and lockers of the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's explanations regarding the source of 1937.2 grams of gold jewellery and made an addition of Rs. 94,72,908/- u/s 69B r.w.s. 115BBE5.
4. Against the order of the AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee challenged the addition before the Ld. CIT(A), contending that 521 grams belonged to her mother-in-law, Smt. Poonam Seth. 450 grams belonged to her husband and children, allowable under CBDT Instruction No. 1916. 840 grams were purchased in Oct-Nov 2014 using cash withdrawals of Rs. 21,23,000/- from her SBI bank account.
The Ld. CIT(A) granted partial relief: thereby a) Deleted addition regarding 521 grams (mother-in-law's jewellery), b) Deleted addition regarding 450 grams (family members' allowance).However regarding the 840 grams purchased from cash withdrawals, the CIT(A) observed that while the cash withdrawals were verified, the assessee "must have also spent some money on account of household expenses". Consequently, the CIT(A) restricted the benefit to 50% (420 grams) and confirmed the addition for the remaining 420 grams, valued at Rs. 20,53,800/- (@ Rs. 4890/gram) 6. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred in appeal before the Tribunal.
Before us , the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 20,53,800/-. He argued that the authorities accepted the availability of cash withdrawals of Rs. 21.23 Lakhs in 2014, hence theestimate by the Ld. CIT(A), that household expenses consumed 50% of this amount is purely conjectural and without basis, especially given the affluent status of the assessee's family (Seth Industrial Corporation), which meets household expenses from other known sources. An affidavit confirming the utilisation of cash for jewellery was also filed.
Per contra the Ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT(A), stating that in the absence of purchase bills, the CIT(A) was justified in estimating that a portion of the cash was utilized for other purposes over the 7-year gap between withdrawal and search.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole issue for adjudication is the addition of Rs. 20,53,800/-, representing 420 grams of gold jewellery. 9.1 It is an undisputed fact that the assessee withdrew Rs. 21,23,000/- in cash from her SBI account between 19.10.2014 and 22.11.201414. The Ld. CIT(A) has accepted the availability of these funds but surmised that 50% of this amount was spent on household expenses. We find merit in the assessee's contention that the ad hoc estimation of 50% for household expenses is arbitrary, particularly when the assessee belongs to a well-established business family. Generally, in such families, household expenses are not met by women and the lady's personal capital withdrawals are intended for asset creation. The assessee had also filed an affidavit affirming the purchase, which has not been rebutted with specific evidence of alternative spending. However, we cannot entirely overlook that the purchase dates back to 2014, and no invoices were found during the 2021 search. While the source (cash withdrawal) is explained, the precise conversion of the entire amount of that cash into the specific jewellery found is a matter of claim rather than probability.Considering the totality of facts specifically the proven cash withdrawals of Rs. 21.23 Lakhs which are sufficient to cover the purchase of 840 grams, we are of the view that the CIT(A) was excessive in disallowing 50%. The benefit of doubt regarding the utilization of funds for jewellery purchase should largely go to the assessee. However, to account for any minor discrepancies arising from the lack of bills and the time