ANKITA BHARTIA,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

2013-14 against impugned appellate order dated 19/04/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1064224528(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].

(B) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and regularly assessed to income tax. The assessee has filed her return of income for the year under consideration on 12/07/2013 declaring total income of Rs.7,04,470/-. The assessee has shown income from salary, house property and income from other sources. During the course of search in the case of another assessee, a valuation report related to the assessee was found, wherein the jewellery possessed by the assessee was found and the valuation of the jewellery was determined at Rs.15,95,965/-. In response to noticed u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee filed her return of income declaring income at Rs.7,04,470/-. In response to notice u/s 142(1) dated 21/02/2022, the assessee submitted that the total weight of the jewellery is just 516.526 grams which has been received by her in her marriage and as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, and CBDT Circular, the married woman is allowed to keep 500 grams of jewellery without any objection/question and the same is exempt from the taxation point of view. The Assessing Officer did not accept the contention of assessee and made the addition of Rs.15,95,965/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the order of learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

(C) During the course of hearing learned Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made during the assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer and during appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A). Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the jewellery in question was received by the assessee as gifts from her parents and relatives on the occasion of her marriage therefore, the jewellery received by the assessee clearly falls within the exemption provided under section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. He also submitted that as per CBDT Circular No. 347-E dated 20/05/1978 and CBDT Instruction No.1916-FNo.286-63-93-IT-INV.II dated 11/05/1994, in the case of 500 grams of gold jewellery is treated as explained. On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative for Revenue relied on the orders of authorities below.

(D) We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. In accordance with several judicial pronouncements and aforesaid CBDT Circular No. 347-E dated 20/05/1978 and CBDT Instruction No.1916-FNo.286-63-93-IT-INV.II dated 11/05/1994, a married woman is allowed to keep 500 grams of gold newellery and the same is exempt from taxation. We hold that it is customary for an Indian woman to receive jewellery as ‘Streedhan’ on occasions like marriage, birth of a child, etc. In the present case, the jewellery in question is weighing 516.50 grams, which is 16.50 grams above the weight of jewellery allowed to be exempt. This minor deviation in weight is insignificant having regard to financial and social standing of the assessee and her family. Any adverse view against the assessee on account of this minor and insignificant deviation is not warranted in the overall facts and circumstances of this specific case. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the aforesaid addition of Rs.15,95,965/- (E) In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 06/05/2025)