Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA & SHRI KULDIP SINGH
ORDER Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member : Since common questions of facts and law have been raised in both the aforesaid inter connected appeals, the same are being disposed of by way of consolidated order to avoid repetition of discussion.
The appellant, Gurpreet Kaur ( ) and Harminder Kaur Nanda (ITA No. 4730/Del/2015) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Assessee’) by filing the present appeals sought to set aside the impugned orders both dated 29.05.2015 & 26.05.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-Dehradun on the grounds inter alia that :-
“ 1. That in facts and circumstance of the case, the Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred wrongly in sustaining the addition of Rs. 6,08,118/- on account of jewellery as unexplained.
2. That in facts and circumstances of the case, The Authorities below has not given the credit of the jewellery purchased for Rs. 3.06,000/- during the assessment year 2011-12 which has been accepted by the Assessing Officer in the capital account of the assessee as well as mentioned in CIT(Appeals) order, addition of the same in the hands of the appellant is wrong and unjustified.
3. That in facts and circumstances of the case, that the CIT (Appeals) has not given any credit of a child in accordance to CBDT Circular no. 1916 dated 11.05.1994, is bad at law.
4. That the addition to the returned income as sustained by the ld. CIT(A) may please be deleted. (ITA no. 4730/Del/2015)
“1. That in facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred wrongly in sustaining the addition of Rs. 8.08,118/- on account of jewellery as unexplained.
2. That in facts and circumstances of the case, the Authorities below has not given the credit of the jewellery purchased for Rs. 2,02,590/- during the assessment year 2010-11 & 2011-12 which has been accepted by the Assessing Officer in the capital account of the assessee as well as mentioned in CIT(Appeals) order at page 3, addition of the same in the hands of the appellant is wrong and unjustified.
That in facts and circumstances of the case, that the CIT(Appeals) has not given any credit of a child in accordance to CBDT Circular No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994, is bad at law.
4. That the addition to the returned income as sustained by the ld. CIT(A) may please be deleted.”
3. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : the Assessing Officer noticed that during the search operation jewellery worth Rs. 13,68,415/- was found in a Locker no. 633 and jewellery worth Rs. 17,06,680/- from Locker no. 119, Punjab & Sindh Bank, JKPS, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi jointly owned by Smt. Harminder Kaur and her daughter Smt. Gurpreet Kaur. Declining the contention raised by the assessee, AO made addition of Rs. 18,12,112/- in case of Herminder Kaur and Gurpreet Kaur assessees in both the aforesaid appeals to the extent of 50% share in case of both the assessees during the year under assessment.
Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing the appeal who is partly allowed the same. Feeling aggrieved the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal.
We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representative of the Assessee gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case.
Undisputedly jewellery weighing 1805.30 gms worth Rs. 36,24,225/- was seized from the residence and lockers of the assessees during search and seizure operation conducted on 21.10.2000, which is detailed as under :-
Amount Weight Location Rs.5,49,154/- 2.46.600gm Jewellery was found from Residence, owner Harminder Kaur and Gurpreet Kaur.
Rs. 17,06,680/- 847.400gm Jewellery was found from locker no. 119, P&S Bank, Delhi Rs. 13,68,415/- 684.300gm Jewellery was found from locker no. 238 P&S Bank, Patel Nagar.
Rs. 36,24,249/- 1805.300gm Total Jewellery
The Ld. AR for the assessee challenging the impugned order drew our attention towards opening para at page 3 of the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the assessee explained that the lockers from which the jewellery was found belongs to her and her mother, but jewellery belongs to Sh. Harminer Kaur, Gurpreet Kaur, Baby Bisreen Kaur and her husband. Ld. AO as well as CIT(A) have not dealt with the aforesaid contention of the assessee that the jewellery seized belongs to four persons namely Harminder Kaur, her husband Smt. Gurpreet Kaur and baby Bisreen Kaur.
This fact was also brought to the notice of AO by the assessee by filing reply dated 12th March, 2013 wherein it is categorically mentioned that the jewellery in question belongs to Harminder Kaur, Gurpreet Kaur, Bisreen Kaur and husband of Gurpreet Kaur.
It is settled Principle of Law that as per CBDT Circular no. 1916 dated 11.05.1994 that even if a person is not assessed to wealth tax, gold jewellery or ornament to the extent of 500 gm per female, 250 gm per unmarried female and 100 gm per male member of the family is not to be seized and unless anything contrary is not proved it can be presumed that the source to the extent of aforesaid jewellery per female and male members is explained.
Now in view of admitted fact that Smt. Harminder Kaur and Gurpreet Kaur are married females and jewellery to the extent of 500 gm each belongs to them and the purchase of its source is presumed to be explained because nothing contrary has been brought on record by the revenue. Likewise source of purchase of jewellery to the extent of 250 gms falling into share of baby Bisreen is also explained. Similarly husband of Gurpreet Kaur is also presumed owner of the jewellery to the extent of 100 gm.
In the absence of any contrary material on record, we are of the considered view that both the assessees are owner of the jewellery to the extent of 1350 gm i.e. (Smt. Gurpreet Kaur 500 gm + Smt. Harminer Kaur 500 gm + Baby Bisreen 250 gm + 100 gm of husband of Gurpreet Kaur). However, the Ld. AR for the assessee accepted the addition qua remaining 500 gm of jewellery seized from Gurpreet Kaur and Harminder Kaur. So the addition on account of 500 gm of jewellery the value of which is to be assessed as on date of the search i.e. 21.10.2010 by the AO is confirmed.
In view of what has been discussed above, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed, however, the AO is directed to verify the fact while granting the relief as per CBDT Circular (supra) that no double benefit is to be granted to any of the family member of Gurpreet Kaur and Harminder Kaur.
Consequently both the appeals are partly allowed. Order pronounced in open court on this 21st day of December, 2018.