SH. UMESH KUMAR TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1714/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 March 2020AY 2011-1214 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision in an identical case, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The issues were remitted back to the AO for re-adjudication.

What were the facts?

During a search, unexplained jewellery was found. The Assessing Officer (AO) added 50% of the unexplained jewellery value to the assessee's income, with the remaining 50% added to another family member's income. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the quantification of unexplained jewellery was justified and whether the CBDT circular on permissible limits of jewellery was correctly applied.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 143(3),Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Chandra, Advocate

[A] This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned appellate order dated 27.01.2016 passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Kanpur, [in short, “Ld.CIT(A)”] pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

“1. That on the facts and circumstance of the case the CIT (A) erred in sustaining the, addition of the value of excess jewellery quantified as unexplained investment presumably in terms of section 69 of the Act even though there was no indication in the assessment order passed by the Ld. A.O. on the method of such quantification for making assessment? Page 1 of 14

ITA No.- 1714/Del/2016. Umesh Kumar Tyagi. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT (A) as well as Ld. A.O. erred in not justifying the quantification of jewellary received at the time of marriage and other ceremonies and quantification of jewellary purchased by the assessee and booked in its books of accounts and accepted by the ld. AO in the assessments framed in consequence of the search?

3.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT (A) erred in deciding that the ld. AO has already accepted the plea of the appellant regarding the limit given by CBDT circular 1916 dated 11/05/1994 which binding in nature, and treated jewellery worth Rs. 30 Lac as explained keeping in view the statement of jewellery purchased by the family, the permissible limits given in the circular of the CBDT and social status of the family and customs of the society.

4.

That the CIT (A) fails to realize that the Id. AO has treated the jewellery to the extent of Rs. 30 Lac as explained without considering the market value of purchased jewellery. Though, vouchers in support of purchase of jewellery were found seized, examined and found correct and accepted by the Id. AO while passing the assessment orders of the respective years. The contention of the assessee was that If market value of jewelleiy purchased is deducted from the total value of jewellery found, the value of balance jewellery per lady comes to Rs. 5.25 Approx and considering the total male and female members it is well within the permissible limits laid down by the CBDT and having regard to the status of family it should be treated as explained. Thus, the addition is liable to be deleted.

5.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Id. AO is wrong to divide the unexplained jewelleiy, if there be any among the two male members rather than among the all family members and the CIT (A) also erred in law while confirming the action of AO stating that cases of other family members are not before the undersigned, so the direction cannot be issued regarding assessment of undisclosed income in the hand of all the family members

6.

That the assessee craves leave of this Hon’ble court to add , amend ,alter or vary any or all the above grounds either or before at the time of hearing , if the circumstances arises

PRAYER:-

That illegal and impugned demand of Rs. 3,32,372/-created on account of alleged additions of Rs. 9,88,500/- detailed above, may kindly be deleted and/or any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and of the circumstances of the case.”

ITA No.- 1714/Del/2016. Umesh Kumar Tyagi. (B) Vide Assessment Order dated 31.03.2013 under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“I.T. Act”, for short) an addition of Rs. 9,88,500/- was made by Assessing Officer (“AO”, for short) on account of unexplained jewellery found in the course of search under Section 132 of I.T. Act. The AO has determined the value of unexplained jewellery at Rs. 19,77,605/- of which 50% (amounting to aforesaid Rs. 9,88,500/-) was added in the hands of the assessee; and the remaining 50% was added in the hands of Shri Ambesh Tyagi. Relevant portion of aforesaid order dated 31.03.2013 is reproduced as under:

ITA No.- 1714/Del/2016. Umesh Kumar Tyagi.

”

(C) The assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Vide aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 27.01.2016, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Relevant portion of the order of Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced below:

“

ITA No.- 1714/Del/2016. Umesh Kumar Tyagi. ITA No.- 1714/Del/2016. Umesh Kumar Tyagi. ITA No.- 1714/Del/2016. Umesh Kumar Tyagi. ITA No.- 1714/Del/2016. Umesh Kumar Tyagi. ITA No.- 1714/Del/2016. Umesh Kumar Tyagi. ITA No.- 1714/Del/2016. Umesh Kumar Tyagi. ITA No.- 1714/Del/2016. Umesh Kumar Tyagi. ITA No.- 1714/Del/2016. Umesh Kumar Tyagi.

”

(C.1) The present appeal has been filed by assessee against aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 27.01.2016. At the time of hearing before us, learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”, for short) of the assessee brought it to our notice that the issue in dispute is covered by order dated 14.08.2019 of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi, in the case of the aforesaid Shri Ambesh Tyagi, in in which, in identical facts and circumstances the disputed issue was remitted back to the AO to re-adjudicate the issue keeping in view guidelines given by Central Board of Direct Taxes (“CBDT”, for short) in Circular No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994. He submitted that the same decision should be followed in this appeal also. Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Departmental Representative) [“Ld. CIT(DR)”, for short] agreed that the issue in dispute, as well as, facts and circumstances in the present appeal before us are identical to facts and circumstances relevant for the aforesaid order dated

ITA No.- 1714/Del/2016. Umesh Kumar Tyagi. 14.08.2019 in the case of the aforesaid Mr. Ambesh Tyagi. However, he relied on the orders of the AO and Ld. CIT(A).

(D) Both sides agree that facts and circumstances as well as issue in dispute in the present appeal are identical to facts and circumstances relevant for the aforesaid order dated 11.08.2019 in the case of the aforesaid Mr. Ambesh Tyagi. Neither side has brought any materials to our notice to persuade us to take a view different from view taken in aforesaid order dated 11.08.2019. In view of the foregoing, and respectfully following aforesaid order dated 11.08.2019 of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi in the case of the aforesaid Mr. Ambesh Tyagi; set aside the impugned order dated 27.01.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A) and we remit the issues in dispute in the present appeal before us to the file of the AO for fresh order in accordance with law keeping in view guidelines issued by CBDT vide aforesaid Circular No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994.

(F) In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced in Open Court on 03/03/2020.

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →