SHARMITA MURARKA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CC - XVIII,K, KOLKATA

3. We first consider the appeal in the case consider the appeal in the case of Smt. Sharmita Murarka in ITA No. of Smt. Sharmita Murarka in ITA No. 56/Kol/2015. 3.1. During the course of search, silver and cash were found and seized. Ca During the course of search, silver and cash were found and seized. Ca During the course of search, silver and cash were found and seized. Cash of ₹ 23,50,000/- was found from locker number 238 which belonged to Smt. Sharmita was found from locker number 238 which belonged to Smt. Sharmita was found from locker number 238 which belonged to Smt. Sharmita Murarka. As regards the jewellery, valuation re Murarka. As regards the jewellery, valuation reports were prepared by the DVO. ports were prepared by the DVO. Assessment was done u/s 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2012 Assessment was done u/s 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2012 Assessment was done u/s 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2012-13. During the course of assessment proceedings of Smt. Sharmita Murarka, the assessee explained the course of assessment proceedings of Smt. Sharmita Murarka, the assessee explained the course of assessment proceedings of Smt. Sharmita Murarka, the assessee explained the source of cash found in the following manner: the source of cash found in the following manner:- a) gift received from Shri Shyama Prasad Murarka on 18/05/2005 received from Shri Shyama Prasad Murarka on 18/05/2005 - - ₹ 350,000/- b) gift received from father gift received from father-in-law, Shri Shyama Prasad Murarka on 20/05/2011 law, Shri Shyama Prasad Murarka on 20/05/2011 - ₹ 20 lakhs/- In support of this claim claim, the assessee furnished a copy of the cash book of Shri , the assessee furnished a copy of the cash book of Shri Shyama Prasad Murarka, father rarka, father-in-law as well as confirmation of the gift from Shri law as well as confirmation of the gift from Shri Shyama Prasad Murarka. The assessing officer rejected rejected the explanation of the assessee and was of the view the explanation of the assessee and was of the view that the cash received would not be kept in the locker and would have been deposite that the cash received would not be kept in the locker and would have been deposite that the cash received would not be kept in the locker and would have been deposited in the bank account. He accordingly assessed nt. He accordingly assessed ₹ 23,50,000/- as undisclosed income of Smt. as undisclosed income of Smt. Sharmita Murarka.

3 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Prabhadevi Murarka Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sharmita Murarka I.T.A. No. 57/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sabita Dey 3.1.1. As regards the jewellery, the assessing officer observed that none of the family As regards the jewellery, the assessing officer observed that none of the family As regards the jewellery, the assessing officer observed that none of the family members were wealth tax assessees and that the items of je members were wealth tax assessees and that the items of jewellery found were never wellery found were never disclosed to the department. After considering all the explanations, he accepted disclosed to the department. After considering all the explanations, he accepted disclosed to the department. After considering all the explanations, he accepted jewellery valued to the extent of jewellery valued to the extent of ₹ 1,950,000/- which was claimed as gifted to the which was claimed as gifted to the assessee by Shri Praveer Murarka. The balance jewellery of assessee by Shri Praveer Murarka. The balance jewellery of ₹1,11,15 ₹1,11,15,340/- was considered as unexplained and brought to tax. The assessing officer considered as unexplained and brought to tax. The assessing officer assessed an amount assessed an amount of ₹ 63,49,395/- as unexplained investment in jewellery by Smt. Sharmita Murarka. In as unexplained investment in jewellery by Smt. Sharmita Murarka. In as unexplained investment in jewellery by Smt. Sharmita Murarka. In the case of Smt. Prabha Devi Murarka, unexplained investment in jewellery the case of Smt. Prabha Devi Murarka, unexplained investment in jewellery the case of Smt. Prabha Devi Murarka, unexplained investment in jewellery was assessed at ₹ 47,65,945/- - . The Assessing Officer completed the assessment on completed the assessment on 26/3/2014 determining the total income at 26/3/2014 determining the total income at ₹ 91,76,800/-, in the case of Smt. Sharmita n the case of Smt. Sharmita Murarka. In the case of Smt. Prabha Devi Murarka, assessment was completed u/s 143(3) In the case of Smt. Prabha Devi Murarka, assessment was completed u/s 143(3) In the case of Smt. Prabha Devi Murarka, assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, determining the total income at of the Act, determining the total income at ₹ 48,27,715/-. In the case of Smt. Sabita Dey, . In the case of Smt. Sabita Dey, assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, was passed on 25/03/2014 assessing the total assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, was passed on 25/03/2014 assessing the total assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, was passed on 25/03/2014 assessing the total income at ₹ 50,57,790/-interalia making an addition on account of undisclosed interalia making an addition on account of undisclosed interalia making an addition on account of undisclosed investment in jewellery of ₹ 42,29,894/ ₹ 42,29,894/- and undisclosed making charges of ornaments and undisclosed making charges of ornaments of Rs.42,492/-. 3.2. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal. The ld. First Appellate Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal. The ld. First Appellate Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal. The ld. First Appellate Authority in his order 28/11/2014 upheld the order of the Assessing Officer and Authority in his order 28/11/2014 upheld the order of the Assessing Officer and Authority in his order 28/11/2014 upheld the order of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeals of the assessee for the various reasons given therein. ismissed the appeals of the assessee for the various reasons given therein. ismissed the appeals of the assessee for the various reasons given therein.

5. In the case of Smt. Sharmita Murarka, the grounds of appeal

are as follows: In the case of Smt. Sharmita Murarka, the grounds of appeal are as follows: In the case of Smt. Sharmita Murarka, the grounds of appeal are as follows:- "1. That the Ld AO acted in arbitrary manner while making "1. That the Ld AO acted in arbitrary manner while making an addition of Rs. an addition of Rs. 23,50,000/ as undisclosed cash on grounds which are not sustainable. The addition as undisclosed cash on grounds which are not sustainable. The addition as undisclosed cash on grounds which are not sustainable. The addition needs to be deleted.

2. That the Ld AO erred in fact and in law in making an addition of Rs. 6349395/

2. That the Ld AO erred in fact and in law in making an addition of Rs. 6349395/

2. That the Ld AO erred in fact and in law in making an addition of Rs. 6349395/- as undisclosed jewelleries. undisclosed jewelleries.

3. That the addition of Rs. 63494/ of Rs. 63494/- made by Ld AO as undisclosed making charges of made by Ld AO as undisclosed making charges of ornaments is devoid of any substance and purely based on surmises and conjectures. ornaments is devoid of any substance and purely based on surmises and conjectures. ornaments is devoid of any substance and purely based on surmises and conjectures.

4. That the addition of Rs. 15163/

4. That the addition of Rs. 15163/- as disallowance U/S 14A on a dividend income of as disallowance U/S 14A on a dividend income of only Rs. 1400/- is not correct and needs to be deleted. is not correct and needs to be deleted.

4 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Prabhadevi Murarka Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sharmita Murarka I.T.A. No. 57/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sabita Dey 5. That otherwise also the valuation of Rs. 38,04,423/ 5. That otherwise also the valuation of Rs. 38,04,423/- and Rs. 44,94,972/ and Rs. 44,94,972/- made by the Ld Valuer vide Valuation Re the Ld Valuer vide Valuation Reports dates 29.09.2011 and dated 28.07.2011 are too ports dates 29.09.2011 and dated 28.07.2011 are too excessive high and unjustified. excessive high and unjustified.

6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, submits that the assessing The ld. Counsel for the assessee, submits that the assessing officer rejected the officer rejected the explanation of the assessee for the cash balances of explanation of the assessee for the cash balances of ₹ 23,50,000/-found in the bank found in the bank locker number 238, for the reason that he did not believe the veracity of the cash book locker number 238, for the reason that he did not believe the veracity of the cash book locker number 238, for the reason that he did not believe the veracity of the cash book of Shri Shyama Prasad Murarka, produced before him. He submitt of Shri Shyama Prasad Murarka, produced before him. He submitt of Shri Shyama Prasad Murarka, produced before him. He submitted that the genuineness of the cash book of Shri Shyam Prasad Murarka, was a subject matter of genuineness of the cash book of Shri Shyam Prasad Murarka, was a subject matter of genuineness of the cash book of Shri Shyam Prasad Murarka, was a subject matter of appeal and in the appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A) appeal and in the appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A), for the assessment year for the assessment year 2012-13, order dated 26/12/2017, the ld. CIT(A) accepted the claim of the ass 13, order dated 26/12/2017, the ld. CIT(A) accepted the claim of the ass 13, order dated 26/12/2017, the ld. CIT(A) accepted the claim of the assessee that the cash book produced by Shri Shyama Prasad Murarka produced by Shri Shyama Prasad Murarka was genuine and the additions was genuine and the additions made in all these seven assessment years i.e., from the assessment year 2006 made in all these seven assessment years i.e., from the assessment year 2006 made in all these seven assessment years i.e., from the assessment year 2006-07 to 2012-13, u/s 153A of the Act, w 13, u/s 153A of the Act, were deleted. Thus, he submits that once the cash deleted. Thus, he submits that once the cash book of Shri Shyama Prasad Murarka was accepted as genuine by the ld. CIT(A) in his case, Shri Shyama Prasad Murarka was accepted as genuine by the ld. CIT(A) in his case, Shri Shyama Prasad Murarka was accepted as genuine by the ld. CIT(A) in his case, the gifts made therefrom has to be accepted as genuine gifts made therefrom has to be accepted as genuine, as there is no contrary material as there is no contrary material with the revenue to show otherwise. He submitted otherwise. He submitted that the assessee has disch that the assessee has discharged the burden of proof that lay on h burden of proof that lay on her. He further submitted that Shri Shyama Prasad Murarka, . He further submitted that Shri Shyama Prasad Murarka, was issued a notice u/s 17 of the Wealth Tax Act and in response thereto, he filed his was issued a notice u/s 17 of the Wealth Tax Act and in response thereto, he filed his was issued a notice u/s 17 of the Wealth Tax Act and in response thereto, he filed his wealth tax return for the assessment year 2006 for the assessment year 2006-07 to 2012-13 and that th 13 and that the assessing officer framed assessments u/s officer framed assessments u/s 16(3) of the Wealth Tax Act and accepted the cash (3) of the Wealth Tax Act and accepted the cash balances as per the cash book of the assessee balances as per the cash book of the assessee disclosed in these wealth tax returns disclosed in these wealth tax returns. He pointed out that the cash balance pointed out that the cash balance in the cash book was substantiated from the substantiated from the withdrawals made by Shri Shyama Prasad Murarka from his disclosed bank accounts. withdrawals made by Shri Shyama Prasad Murarka from his disclosed bank accounts. withdrawals made by Shri Shyama Prasad Murarka from his disclosed bank accounts. Thus, he submits that the additions in question have to be deleted. Thus, he submits that the additions in question have to be deleted. 6.1. The ld. D/R, on the other hand, opposed the contentions of the assessee and The ld. D/R, on the other hand, opposed the contentions of the assessee and The ld. D/R, on the other hand, opposed the contentions of the assessee and submitted that Shri Shyama Prasad Murarka, never filed his return of bmitted that Shri Shyama Prasad Murarka, never filed his return of income u/s 139 of income u/s 139 of the Act, for any of the assessment years 2006 any of the assessment years 2006-07 to 2012-13 and till the and till the search operation has taken place on 28/07/2011. He submitted that the operation has taken place on 28/07/2011. He submitted that the cash book cash book was as an 5 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Prabhadevi Murarka Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sharmita Murarka I.T.A. No. 57/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sabita Dey afterthought and it is against human probabilities that a person would maintain ught and it is against human probabilities that a person would maintain ught and it is against human probabilities that a person would maintain substantial cash balance of substantial cash balance of ₹ 143.92 lakhs/-. He also expressed serious doubts on the . He also expressed serious doubts on the claim of the assessee that she received gifts of the assessee that she received gifts of ₹ 2,350,000/-from her father from her father-in-law. He submitted that the wealth tax returns cannot be considered as evidence to prove cash that the wealth tax returns cannot be considered as evidence to prove cash that the wealth tax returns cannot be considered as evidence to prove cash balance. On a question from the Bench, he could not produce any contrary evidence, On a question from the Bench, he could not produce any contrary evidence, On a question from the Bench, he could not produce any contrary evidence, except for expressing doubts on the claim of the assessee. except for expressing doubts on the claim of the assessee.

7. We have heard rival contentions. On We have heard rival contentions. On careful consideration of the facts and careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record, orders of the authorities circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record, orders of the authorities circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record, orders of the authorities below as well as case law cited, we hold as follows: below as well as case law cited, we hold as follows:- 8. In the case of Shri Shyama Prasad Murarka, the ld. CIT(A) In the case of Shri Shyama Prasad Murarka, the ld. CIT(A) -21, Kolkata, 21, Kolkata, vide his order dt. 26/12/2017, passed u/s 250 of the Act, had considered the cash book in order dt. 26/12/2017, passed u/s 250 of the Act, had considered the cash book in order dt. 26/12/2017, passed u/s 250 of the Act, had considered the cash book in question at para 6, page 6 & 7 of his order and held as follows: question at para 6, page 6 & 7 of his order and held as follows:- "06. FINDINGS & DECISIONS: "06. FINDINGS & DECISIONS: I have carefully considered the submissions of the Ld. A.R and perused I have carefully considered the submissions of the Ld. A.R and perused the impugned order the impugned order passed by the Id. AO for the AY 2012 passed by the Id. AO for the AY 2012-13. Bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the are perusal of the impugned order shows that the reasons justifying the addition of alleged undisclosed cash are verbatim same in all the reasons justifying the addition of alleged undisclosed cash are verbatim same in all the reasons justifying the addition of alleged undisclosed cash are verbatim same in all the orders passed by the Id. AO for the AYs 2006 orders passed by the Id. AO for the AYs 2006-07 to 2012-13. Save & except the figures for the 3. Save & except the figures for the relevant years, the basic reasoning justifying the addition of cash in hand are identically relevant years, the basic reasoning justifying the addition of cash in hand are identically relevant years, the basic reasoning justifying the addition of cash in hand are identically worded in all the orders for AYs 2006 worded in all the orders for AYs 2006-07 to 2012-13. From the materials placed before me, I 13. From the materials placed before me, I note that for the AY 2011- -12, the same AO in the order passed u/s 16(3)/17 of the W.T. Act, ame AO in the order passed u/s 16(3)/17 of the W.T. Act, 1957 had held that the appellant held cash balance of Rs.1,85,23,547/ 1957 had held that the appellant held cash balance of Rs.1,85,23,547/- as on 31.03.2011. as on 31.03.2011. Neither in the course of search nor thereafter the Department had gathered any evidence or Neither in the course of search nor thereafter the Department had gathered any evidence or Neither in the course of search nor thereafter the Department had gathered any evidence or document, which proved that the cash ved that the cash-in hand of Rs.1,85,23,547/- held as on 31.03.2011 held as on 31.03.2011 was spent or otherwise invested by the appellant and therefore such cash in hand, could not was spent or otherwise invested by the appellant and therefore such cash in hand, could not was spent or otherwise invested by the appellant and therefore such cash in hand, could not have been available with the appellant on 31.03.2012. I further find that during FY 2011 have been available with the appellant on 31.03.2012. I further find that during FY 2011 have been available with the appellant on 31.03.2012. I further find that during FY 2011-12, the appellant had withdrawn cash of Rs.18,00,000/ e appellant had withdrawn cash of Rs.18,00,000/- from his disclosed bank accounts: from his disclosed bank accounts: Entries in the bank passbooks substantiated the appellant's contention that the cash was in Entries in the bank passbooks substantiated the appellant's contention that the cash was in Entries in the bank passbooks substantiated the appellant's contention that the cash was in fact withdrawn during FY 2011 fact withdrawn during FY 2011-12. Out of the opening cash balance and cash withdr 12. Out of the opening cash balance and cash withdrawn, Rs.9,71,000/- was re-deposited in the bank and Rs.38,00,000/ deposited in the bank and Rs.38,00,000/- were shown to have been were shown to have been spend to meet assessee's needs and family expenses. Further in the course of search, cash of spend to meet assessee's needs and family expenses. Further in the course of search, cash of spend to meet assessee's needs and family expenses. Further in the course of search, cash of Rs.19,59,600/- was found out of which Rs.18,00,00/ was found out of which Rs.18,00,00/- was seized. Accordin was seized. Accordingly deducting these expenses, deposits and seizure; the cash balance shown in the appellant's balance these expenses, deposits and seizure; the cash balance shown in the appellant's balance these expenses, deposits and seizure; the cash balance shown in the appellant's balance sheet as on 31.03.2012 was Rs.1,43,92,547/ sheet as on 31.03.2012 was Rs.1,43,92,547/-. In view of the foregoing facts therefore I find . In view of the foregoing facts therefore I find that there was no tangible material or evidence available wit that there was no tangible material or evidence available with the Id. AO to come to h the Id. AO to come to conclusion that the cash in hand declared by the appellant in his personal balance sheet conclusion that the cash in hand declared by the appellant in his personal balance sheet conclusion that the cash in hand declared by the appellant in his personal balance sheet could be considered to be unexplained asset. I find that having regard to the wealth could be considered to be unexplained asset. I find that having regard to the wealth could be considered to be unexplained asset. I find that having regard to the wealth-tax assessment of the appellant and the cash withdrawals m assessment of the appellant and the cash withdrawals made from disclosed bank accounts, ade from disclosed bank accounts, the appellant explained the source for the cash balance disclosed in his balance sheet and the appellant explained the source for the cash balance disclosed in his balance sheet and the appellant explained the source for the cash balance disclosed in his balance sheet and therefore unless the Id. AO had brought on record sufficient material to prove such cash was therefore unless the Id. AO had brought on record sufficient material to prove such cash was therefore unless the Id. AO had brought on record sufficient material to prove such cash was otherwise spent, the Id. AO could not otherwise spent, the Id. AO could not have made addition in respect of an asset which duly have made addition in respect of an asset which duly appeared in the appellant's balance sheet. appeared in the appellant's balance sheet. I also note that the Ld. AO has not cited the enabling provision in the Income I also note that the Ld. AO has not cited the enabling provision in the Income I also note that the Ld. AO has not cited the enabling provision in the Income-tax Act, 1961 in terms of which an asset disclosed in the balance sheet of the a in terms of which an asset disclosed in the balance sheet of the appellant was considered as ppellant was considered as unexplained cash. I also find that the reasons justifying the impugned addition was not unexplained cash. I also find that the reasons justifying the impugned addition was not unexplained cash. I also find that the reasons justifying the impugned addition was not I.T.A. No. 55/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Prabhadevi Murarka Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sharmita Murarka Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sabita Dey upheld by my predecessor for AY 2006 upheld by my predecessor for AY 2006-07 & 2007-08 in the appellate orders passed in 08 in the appellate orders passed in 'Appeal Nos. 922 & 923/CC 'Appeal Nos. 922 & 923/CC-3(3)/CIT(A)-21/2014-1S. The relevant finding of my Ld. evant finding of my Ld. predecessor for AY 2007-08 dated 01.04.2015, were as follows: 08 dated 01.04.2015, were as follows: [Quote] "9.1 On careful consideration of the facts, I am of the opinion that the AD was not justified in "9.1 On careful consideration of the facts, I am of the opinion that the AD was not justified in "9.1 On careful consideration of the facts, I am of the opinion that the AD was not justified in treating the cash in hand shown by the appellant in his balance treating the cash in hand shown by the appellant in his balance sheet as undisclosed cash. It sheet as undisclosed cash. It is observed that the AO has accepted the fact that in the year under consideration the is observed that the AO has accepted the fact that in the year under consideration the is observed that the AO has accepted the fact that in the year under consideration the appellant was not having taxable income and his total income liable to tax was only appellant was not having taxable income and his total income liable to tax was only appellant was not having taxable income and his total income liable to tax was only Rs.527/- as shown in the return of income filed u/s 15 as shown in the return of income filed u/s 153A of the Act. Once, it has been 3A of the Act. Once, it has been accepted that the appellant was not having taxable income in the year under consideration; accepted that the appellant was not having taxable income in the year under consideration; accepted that the appellant was not having taxable income in the year under consideration; he was not liable to file the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. Further, it has also not he was not liable to file the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. Further, it has also not he was not liable to file the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. Further, it has also not been disputed by the AO that the cash been disputed by the AO that the cash aggregating to Rs.82,35,000/- had been withdrawn had been withdrawn by the appellant from his bank accounts and in support the appellant has filed copies of the by the appellant from his bank accounts and in support the appellant has filed copies of the by the appellant from his bank accounts and in support the appellant has filed copies of the bank statements and the cash book. It is also observed that the AO has accepted all the items bank statements and the cash book. It is also observed that the AO has accepted all the items bank statements and the cash book. It is also observed that the AO has accepted all the items of Balance Sheet for the year under consideration except the cash in hand and treated the r the year under consideration except the cash in hand and treated the r the year under consideration except the cash in hand and treated the same as unaccounted case. It is not the case of the AO that either the investments made by same as unaccounted case. It is not the case of the AO that either the investments made by same as unaccounted case. It is not the case of the AO that either the investments made by the appellant in shares and securities were undisclosed investments or the bank accounts the appellant in shares and securities were undisclosed investments or the bank accounts the appellant in shares and securities were undisclosed investments or the bank accounts shown by the appellant in his balance sheet were undisclosed bank accounts. It is also not by the appellant in his balance sheet were undisclosed bank accounts. It is also not by the appellant in his balance sheet were undisclosed bank accounts. It is also not the case of the AO that the deposits made in the bank accounts were the undisclosed income the case of the AO that the deposits made in the bank accounts were the undisclosed income the case of the AO that the deposits made in the bank accounts were the undisclosed income of the appellant. I am of the opinion that once, the bank accounts shown by the of the appellant. I am of the opinion that once, the bank accounts shown by the of the appellant. I am of the opinion that once, the bank accounts shown by the appellant in his balance sheet has been accepted as disclosed bank accounts and the cash in bank has his balance sheet has been accepted as disclosed bank accounts and the cash in bank has his balance sheet has been accepted as disclosed bank accounts and the cash in bank has been accepted, there is no reason to treat the cash withdrawn from these bank accounts as been accepted, there is no reason to treat the cash withdrawn from these bank accounts as been accepted, there is no reason to treat the cash withdrawn from these bank accounts as undisclosed cash. 9.2 It is observed that the AO has relied on 9.2 It is observed that the AO has relied on the principle of human probabilities and in this the principle of human probabilities and in this regard relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal (supra). regard relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal (supra). regard relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal (supra). However, I am of the opinion that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the However, I am of the opinion that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the However, I am of the opinion that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal is not a case of Sumati Dayal is not applicable in the Instant case because in the case of Sumati pplicable in the Instant case because in the case of Sumati Dayal, the assessee had won all the jackpots continuously In two or three years. There was Dayal, the assessee had won all the jackpots continuously In two or three years. There was Dayal, the assessee had won all the jackpots continuously In two or three years. There was no entry of purchase of ticket of jackpots in the books of account and there was no cash in no entry of purchase of ticket of jackpots in the books of account and there was no cash in no entry of purchase of ticket of jackpots in the books of account and there was no cash in hand on the relevant dates of purchase of tickets. Under the circumstances, it was held by elevant dates of purchase of tickets. Under the circumstances, it was held by elevant dates of purchase of tickets. Under the circumstances, it was held by the Apex Court that it was highly improbable that a same person had won all the jackpots in the Apex Court that it was highly improbable that a same person had won all the jackpots in the Apex Court that it was highly improbable that a same person had won all the jackpots in all the years. But, in the instant case the appellant has claimed cash in hand out of all the years. But, in the instant case the appellant has claimed cash in hand out of all the years. But, in the instant case the appellant has claimed cash in hand out of the cash withdrawn by him from his bank accounts. The AO has accepted that the cash was, indeed, withdrawn by him from his bank accounts. The AO has accepted that the cash was, indeed, withdrawn by him from his bank accounts. The AO has accepted that the cash was, indeed, withdrawn from the bank accounts. The AO has further opined that it is most improbable if withdrawn from the bank accounts. The AO has further opined that it is most improbable if withdrawn from the bank accounts. The AO has further opined that it is most improbable if not impossible that a person would keep substantial amount of cash in not impossible that a person would keep substantial amount of cash in hand rather than to hand rather than to keep the same in bank. I am of the opinion that the AO may be correct in his logic but the' keep the same in bank. I am of the opinion that the AO may be correct in his logic but the' keep the same in bank. I am of the opinion that the AO may be correct in his logic but the' fact remains that no law prohibits a person that he could not keep the cash in hand. The fact remains that no law prohibits a person that he could not keep the cash in hand. The fact remains that no law prohibits a person that he could not keep the cash in hand. The only requirement is that such person has to explain th only requirement is that such person has to explain the source of cash in hand. In the instant e source of cash in hand. In the instant case, the appellant has explained the cash in hand being the withdrawals from the bank case, the appellant has explained the cash in hand being the withdrawals from the bank case, the appellant has explained the cash in hand being the withdrawals from the bank accounts which has not been disputed. The AO has also mentioned that actually the cash accounts which has not been disputed. The AO has also mentioned that actually the cash accounts which has not been disputed. The AO has also mentioned that actually the cash was withdrawn by the assessee from his ba was withdrawn by the assessee from his bank accounts for other purposes and expenses etc. nk accounts for other purposes and expenses etc. However, in support of his observation the AO has brought no material on record. In the However, in support of his observation the AO has brought no material on record. In the However, in support of his observation the AO has brought no material on record. In the case of appellant, the search operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 28.07.2011 and case of appellant, the search operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 28.07.2011 and case of appellant, the search operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 28.07.2011 and there is no evidence that th there is no evidence that the appellant had incurred any expenditure which has not been e appellant had incurred any expenditure which has not been accounted for or incurred out of the cash withdrawn from the bank. Hence, In the absence of accounted for or incurred out of the cash withdrawn from the bank. Hence, In the absence of accounted for or incurred out of the cash withdrawn from the bank. Hence, In the absence of any evidence it would not be correct to hold that the cash from the bank was withdrawn for any evidence it would not be correct to hold that the cash from the bank was withdrawn for any evidence it would not be correct to hold that the cash from the bank was withdrawn for other purposes and the cash so withdrawn was utilized for other purposes. As admitted by s and the cash so withdrawn was utilized for other purposes. As admitted by s and the cash so withdrawn was utilized for other purposes. As admitted by the AO the appellant had withdrawn cash aggregating to Rs.82,35,000/ the AO the appellant had withdrawn cash aggregating to Rs.82,35,000/- from his bank from his bank accounts on various dates and the sum of Rs.37,25,547/ accounts on various dates and the sum of Rs.37,25,547/- was opening cash in hand as on was opening cash in hand as on 01.04.2006. After making withdrawals during the year for personal purposes the remaining 6. After making withdrawals during the year for personal purposes the remaining 6. After making withdrawals during the year for personal purposes the remaining cash in hand as on 31.03.2007 was Rs.l,04,60,547/ cash in hand as on 31.03.2007 was Rs.l,04,60,547/-. It means that the appellant had spent . It means that the appellant had spent cash of RS.15,OO,000/- during the year for various purposes. In view of above, I am of during the year for various purposes. In view of above, I am of during the year for various purposes. In view of above, I am of the opinion that it is not correct to hold that the cash in hand shown by the appellant was opinion that it is not correct to hold that the cash in hand shown by the appellant was opinion that it is not correct to hold that the cash in hand shown by the appellant was 7 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Prabhadevi Murarka Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sharmita Murarka I.T.A. No. 57/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sabita Dey undisclosed cash. The AO is directed to delete the addition made by him. The ground no. 3 is undisclosed cash. The AO is directed to delete the addition made by him. The ground no. 3 is undisclosed cash. The AO is directed to delete the addition made by him. The ground no. 3 is allowed." [Unquote] 3. For the reasons set out in the foregoing and 3. For the reasons set out in the foregoing and following the appellate order for AY 2007 following the appellate order for AY 2007-08, the addition of RS.l,43,92,547/- is hereby deleted. Ground No. 1 is therefore allowed." is hereby deleted. Ground No. 1 is therefore allowed."

8 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Prabhadevi Murarka Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sharmita Murarka I.T.A. No. 57/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sabita Dey 12.1. The ld. Counsel for the assesse The ld. Counsel for the assessee, further relied on the CBDT Instruction No. 1916 e, further relied on the CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dt. 11/05/1994 and submitted that credit has to be given for the jewellery held by each dt. 11/05/1994 and submitted that credit has to be given for the jewellery held by each dt. 11/05/1994 and submitted that credit has to be given for the jewellery held by each of the persons as per the circular. He submitted that there were three married ladies of the persons as per the circular. He submitted that there were three married ladies of the persons as per the circular. He submitted that there were three married ladies and hence gold of 500 g each sh and hence gold of 500 g each should be considered, as to be normally owned as per normally owned as per custom, by each of these married ladies and gold of 250 g each should be by each of these married ladies and gold of 250 g each should be by each of these married ladies and gold of 250 g each should be considered as that of the lone unmarried lady. He further claimed that the two male members should lone unmarried lady. He further claimed that the two male members should lone unmarried lady. He further claimed that the two male members should be deemed to be owners as per cus deemed to be owners as per customs, of 100 g of gold each. Hence gold to the extent ence gold to the extent of 1950 g should be considered as explained of 1950 g should be considered as explained as being held by the family as as being held by the family as customary gold and jewellery. He submitted a chart on this explanation. . He submitted a chart on this explanation. 12.1.1. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, pointed out The ld. Counsel for the assessee, pointed out that the assessing officer rejected that the assessing officer rejected these contentions of this on the ground that the items of jewellery found in these contentions of this on the ground that the items of jewellery found in these contentions of this on the ground that the items of jewellery found in the search in this year 1987 did not tally with the items of jewellery found with the items of jewellery found in the course of search. He in the course of search. He vehemently contented that the item to vehemently contented that the item to item reconciliation over the period of time, is not item reconciliation over the period of time, is not possible specifically when the items of jewellery had undergone a change when the items of jewellery had undergone a change when the items of jewellery had undergone a change, as white metal was replaced by gold the conversion charges of which was taxed as unexplained the conversion charges of which was taxed as unexplained by the Assessing Officer. He pointed . He pointed out that the revenue authorities during the course out that the revenue authorities during the course of search and thereafter, did not find any other jewellery with the family members and of search and thereafter, did not find any other jewellery with the family members and of search and thereafter, did not find any other jewellery with the family members and also did not find any evidence of sale also did not find any evidence of sale or otherwise disposing off the jewellery of 1987 or otherwise disposing off the jewellery of 1987 by the family members. He furt the family members. He further pointed out that the assessing officer added making her pointed out that the assessing officer added making charges, which supports the contention of the assessee that the jewellery was remade charges, which supports the contention of the assessee that the jewellery was remade charges, which supports the contention of the assessee that the jewellery was remade and that remaking charges were in fact were in fact incurred. He relied on certain decisions for the incurred. He relied on certain decisions for the proposition that the CBDT I proposition that the CBDT Instruction No. 1916, dt. 11/05/1994, should be considered nstruction No. 1916, dt. 11/05/1994, should be considered and benefit of the same should be given to the assessee and benefit of the same should be given to the assessee. With the help of the charts filed . With the help of the charts filed before us, he repeated that the very same arguments that the very same arguments on the addition as on the addition as undisclosed investment in jewellery, made in the hands of Smt. Sharmita Murarka and Smt. Prabha made in the hands of Smt. Sharmita Murarka and Smt. Prabha made in the hands of Smt. Sharmita Murarka and Smt. Prabha Devi Murarka.

10 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Prabhadevi Murarka Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sharmita Murarka I.T.A. No. 57/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sabita Dey Diamond Jewellery found during search in 1987 Diamond Jewellery found during search in 1987 Kts Jewellery in Locker No. 619 Jewellery in Locker No. 619 72.75 Jewellery found at residence Jewellery found at residence 119.26 Total Diamond caratage in 1987 (A) Total Diamond caratage in 1987 (A) 192.01 Diamond found in 2011 (B) Diamond found in 2011 (B) 215.45 Less: Diamond already assessed during search of 1987 (A) already assessed during search of 1987 (A) 192.01 Increase in diamond (C) Increase in diamond (C) 23.44 15.1. The assessee submits that the increase of The assessee submits that the increase of ₹ 635,000 in the jewellery of Smt. ₹ 635,000 in the jewellery of Smt. Sharmita Murarka, has been accounted for in the books of accounts for the financial Sharmita Murarka, has been accounted for in the books of accounts for the financial Sharmita Murarka, has been accounted for in the books of accounts for the financial year 2011-12. This factual claim is not controverted by the ld. D/R. The assessee 12. This factual claim is not controverted by the ld. D/R. The assessee 12. This factual claim is not controverted by the ld. D/R. The assessee submitted that the increase in jewellery comprising of 23.44 carats of diamond have ed that the increase in jewellery comprising of 23.44 carats of diamond have ed that the increase in jewellery comprising of 23.44 carats of diamond have been accounted for in the books of Smt. Sharmita Murarka, over the years. The average been accounted for in the books of Smt. Sharmita Murarka, over the years. The average been accounted for in the books of Smt. Sharmita Murarka, over the years. The average value of diamond per carat, as per the valuation report of M/s Bhikam Chand value of diamond per carat, as per the valuation report of M/s Bhikam Chand value of diamond per carat, as per the valuation report of M/s Bhikam Chand Bacchawat, was considered at Rs.25,000/ nsidered at Rs.25,000/- and the increase worked out to and the increase worked out to ₹ 586,000. This fact is also not controverted by the ld. D/R. This fact is also not controverted by the ld. D/R. Now the issue is whether credit has to be given as per the CBDT Instruction No. Now the issue is whether credit has to be given as per the CBDT Instruction No. Now the issue is whether credit has to be given as per the CBDT Instruction No. 1916/1994. 15.2. This Bench of the Tribunal in the case o This Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Rajmati Kothari vs. ACIT in IT(SS)A f Smt. Rajmati Kothari vs. ACIT in IT(SS)A No. 40/Kol/2017, order dt. 20/07/2018 has held as follows: No. 40/Kol/2017, order dt. 20/07/2018 has held as follows:- "4. We have heard both the parties reiterating their respective stand against and in support of "4. We have heard both the parties reiterating their respective stand against and in support of "4. We have heard both the parties reiterating their respective stand against and in support of the impugned addition. The sole question that arises for the impugned addition. The sole question that arises for adjudicaiton is whether both the lower adjudicaiton is whether both the lower authorities have rightly held the the assessee to be not entitled for claiming relief of upto 500 authorities have rightly held the the assessee to be not entitled for claiming relief of upto 500 authorities have rightly held the the assessee to be not entitled for claiming relief of upto 500 gms of gold jewellery as per CBDT Circular (supra) or not. We find this question to be no more gms of gold jewellery as per CBDT Circular (supra) or not. We find this question to be no more gms of gold jewellery as per CBDT Circular (supra) or not. We find this question to be no more res integra as a coordinate bench of this tribunal's decision in Smt. Suchitra S.Dhanani, Indore ate bench of this tribunal's decision in Smt. Suchitra S.Dhanani, Indore ate bench of this tribunal's decision in Smt. Suchitra S.Dhanani, Indore vs The ACIT in decided on 04.01.2018 has adjudicated the very issue vs The ACIT in ITA NO.3014/Ahd/2014 decided on 04.01.2018 has adjudicated the very issue vs The ACIT in ITA NO.3014/Ahd/2014 decided on 04.01.2018 has adjudicated the very issue against the Revenue as under : against the Revenue as under : "4. We have heard both the parties reiterating their respective stands. Case file "4. We have heard both the parties reiterating their respective stands. Case file "4. We have heard both the parties reiterating their respective stands. Case file perused. The sole question that arises for our adjudication in the instant appeal is as to perused. The sole question that arises for our adjudication in the instant appeal is as to perused. The sole question that arises for our adjudication in the instant appeal is as to whether assessee's jewellery in question not seized during search could be taken as whether assessee's jewellery in question not seized during search could be taken as whether assessee's jewellery in question not seized during search could be taken as explained since falling within the prescribed quantity upto 500 grams as per CBDT's explained since falling within the prescribed quantity upto 500 grams as per CBDT's explained since falling within the prescribed quantity upto 500 grams as per CBDT's abovestated circular dated 11.05.1994 (supra). We find that this question is no more abovestated circular dated 11.05.1994 (supra). We find that this question is no more abovestated circular dated 11.05.1994 (supra). We find that this question is no more res integra as per a co res integra as per a co-ordinate bench decision in ACIT vs. Shri Jerambhai B. ordinate bench decision in ACIT vs. Shri Jerambhai B. Khokhariya ITA No.2613/Ahd/2009 decided in assessee's favour on 05.11.2015 ya ITA No.2613/Ahd/2009 decided in assessee's favour on 05.11.2015 ya ITA No.2613/Ahd/2009 decided in assessee's favour on 05.11.2015 quoting hon'ble jurisdictional high court's judgment in CIT vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain quoting hon'ble jurisdictional high court's judgment in CIT vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain quoting hon'ble jurisdictional high court's judgment in CIT vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain (2010) 235 CTR 568 (Guj) as follows: (2010) 235 CTR 568 (Guj) as follows: "7.2 The CBDT instruction no.1916 dated 11.05.1994 suggests th "7.2 The CBDT instruction no.1916 dated 11.05.1994 suggests th "7.2 The CBDT instruction no.1916 dated 11.05.1994 suggests that a family is supposed to hold certain jewellery received at the time of marriages from supposed to hold certain jewellery received at the time of marriages from supposed to hold certain jewellery received at the time of marriages from I.T.A. No. 55/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Prabhadevi Murarka Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sharmita Murarka Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sabita Dey parents and in laws within the limit of 500 gr. of jewellery for a married parents and in laws within the limit of 500 gr. of jewellery for a married parents and in laws within the limit of 500 gr. of jewellery for a married woman, 250 gr. for unmarried daughters and 100 gr. with unmarried child. woman, 250 gr. for unmarried daughters and 100 gr. with unmarried child. woman, 250 gr. for unmarried daughters and 100 gr. with unmarried child. Though, the instruc Though, the instruction speaks of not seizing the same during search tion speaks of not seizing the same during search operation extended meaning of the same shows extension that the jewellery operation extended meaning of the same shows extension that the jewellery operation extended meaning of the same shows extension that the jewellery should be treated as explained one and is not to be treated as unexplained for should be treated as explained one and is not to be treated as unexplained for should be treated as explained one and is not to be treated as unexplained for the purpose of income tax. Hon'ble IT(SS)A.No.40/Kol/ the purpose of income tax. Hon'ble IT(SS)A.No.40/Kol/2017 Smt. Rajmati 2017 Smt. Rajmati Kothari A.Y.2008 Kothari A.Y.2008-09 5 Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Ratanlal 09 5 Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain(2010) 235 CTR 0568 (Guj) has held as under: Vyaparilal Jain(2010) 235 CTR 0568 (Guj) has held as under: Vyaparilal Jain(2010) 235 CTR 0568 (Guj) has held as under: "Though it is true that the CBDT Circular No. 1916, dt.11th May, 1994 lays "Though it is true that the CBDT Circular No. 1916, dt.11th May, 1994 lays "Though it is true that the CBDT Circular No. 1916, dt.11th May, 1994 lays down guidelines for seizur down guidelines for seizure of jewellery and ornaments in the course of e of jewellery and ornaments in the course of search, the same takes into account the quantity of jewellery which would search, the same takes into account the quantity of jewellery which would search, the same takes into account the quantity of jewellery which would generally be held by family members of an assessee belonging to an ordinary generally be held by family members of an assessee belonging to an ordinary generally be held by family members of an assessee belonging to an ordinary Hindu household. The approach adopted by the Tribunal in fol Hindu household. The approach adopted by the Tribunal in fol Hindu household. The approach adopted by the Tribunal in following the said circular and giving benefit to the assessee, even for explaining the said circular and giving benefit to the assessee, even for explaining the said circular and giving benefit to the assessee, even for explaining the source in respect of the jewellery being held by the family is in consonance source in respect of the jewellery being held by the family is in consonance source in respect of the jewellery being held by the family is in consonance with the general practice in Hindu families whereby jewellery is gifted by with the general practice in Hindu families whereby jewellery is gifted by with the general practice in Hindu families whereby jewellery is gifted by the relatives and f the relatives and friends at the time of social functions, viz., marriages, riends at the time of social functions, viz., marriages, birthdays, marriage anniversary and other festivals. These gifts are birthdays, marriage anniversary and other festivals. These gifts are birthdays, marriage anniversary and other festivals. These gifts are customary and customs prevailing in a society cannot be ignored. Thus customary and customs prevailing in a society cannot be ignored. Thus customary and customs prevailing in a society cannot be ignored. Thus although the circular had been issued for the purpose of non although the circular had been issued for the purpose of non although the circular had been issued for the purpose of non- seizure of jewellery during the course of search, the basis for the same recognizes jewellery during the course of search, the basis for the same recognizes jewellery during the course of search, the basis for the same recognizes customs prevailing in Hindu society. In the circumstances, unless the customs prevailing in Hindu society. In the circumstances, unless the customs prevailing in Hindu society. In the circumstances, unless the Revenue shows anything to the contrary, it can safely be presumed that the Revenue shows anything to the contrary, it can safely be presumed that the Revenue shows anything to the contrary, it can safely be presumed that the source to the extent of t source to the extent of the jewellery stated in the circular stands explained. he jewellery stated in the circular stands explained. Thus, the approach adopted by the Tribunal in considering the extent of Thus, the approach adopted by the Tribunal in considering the extent of Thus, the approach adopted by the Tribunal in considering the extent of jewellery specified under the said circular tobe a reasonable quantity, jewellery specified under the said circular tobe a reasonable quantity, jewellery specified under the said circular tobe a reasonable quantity, cannot be faulted with. In the circumstances, it is not po cannot be faulted with. In the circumstances, it is not possible to state that ssible to state that the Tribunal has committed any legal error so as to give rise to a question of the Tribunal has committed any legal error so as to give rise to a question of the Tribunal has committed any legal error so as to give rise to a question of law." From going through the above judicial pronouncement, it is ample clear that gold From going through the above judicial pronouncement, it is ample clear that gold From going through the above judicial pronouncement, it is ample clear that gold jewellery found to the extent of limit mentioned in the circular is jewellery found to the extent of limit mentioned in the circular is treated as explained treated as explained and this can be clearly applied on the assessee's case, wherein no specific deduction of and this can be clearly applied on the assessee's case, wherein no specific deduction of and this can be clearly applied on the assessee's case, wherein no specific deduction of gold jewellery possessed by family members and grand children was given by the gold jewellery possessed by family members and grand children was given by the gold jewellery possessed by family members and grand children was given by the Assessing Officer from the total gold jewellery found at the time o Assessing Officer from the total gold jewellery found at the time of search and seizure f search and seizure operation and differential gold jewellery of 1924.22 gr. is the gold jewellery possessed operation and differential gold jewellery of 1924.22 gr. is the gold jewellery possessed operation and differential gold jewellery of 1924.22 gr. is the gold jewellery possessed by the female members and minor children of the assessee's joint family and this by the female members and minor children of the assessee's joint family and this by the female members and minor children of the assessee's joint family and this quantity of 1924.22 gr. is well within the total limit of jewelle quantity of 1924.22 gr. is well within the total limit of jewellery at 2100 gr. as per the ry at 2100 gr. as per the CBDT instruction no.1916 dated 11.05.1994. Therefore by respectfully following the CBDT instruction no.1916 dated 11.05.1994. Therefore by respectfully following the CBDT instruction no.1916 dated 11.05.1994. Therefore by respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain (supra) and in view of our discussions made above, we fin (supra) and in view of our discussions made above, we find no infirmity in the order of d no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) so as to warrant interference and accordingly, the grounds taken by the the CIT(A) so as to warrant interference and accordingly, the grounds taken by the the CIT(A) so as to warrant interference and accordingly, the grounds taken by the Revenue are rejected. Accordingly appeal of the Revenue is dismissed." Revenue are rejected. Accordingly appeal of the Revenue is dismissed." Revenue are rejected. Accordingly appeal of the Revenue is dismissed." It is therefore clear that gold jewellery found upto the abovestated q It is therefore clear that gold jewellery found upto the abovestated q It is therefore clear that gold jewellery found upto the abovestated quantity of 500 grams is to be treated as explained as per the Board's circular hereinabove. grams is to be treated as explained as per the Board's circular hereinabove. grams is to be treated as explained as per the Board's circular hereinabove. We therefore delete the impugned addition of Rs.6,71,113/ We therefore delete the impugned addition of Rs.6,71,113/- made by both the lower made by both the lower authorities.

5. This assessee's appeal is allowed."

5. This assessee's appeal is allowed."

12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Prabhadevi Murarka Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sharmita Murarka I.T.A. No. 57/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sabita Dey 15.3. Respectfully following the propositions of law laid down in this case Respectfully following the propositions of law laid down in this case Respectfully following the propositions of law laid down in this case-law, we direct the Assessing Officer to give credit of 500 g to each of the three married ladies, direct the Assessing Officer to give credit of 500 g to each of the three married ladies, direct the Assessing Officer to give credit of 500 g to each of the three married ladies, 250 g for the lone unmarried lady and 100 g for each of the male members of the 250 g for the lone unmarried lady and 100 g for each of the male members of the 250 g for the lone unmarried lady and 100 g for each of the male members of the Murarka family, totalling to 1950 g of gold as customary gold held by the family as per ly, totalling to 1950 g of gold as customary gold held by the family as per ly, totalling to 1950 g of gold as customary gold held by the family as per CBDT Circular No. 1916, d. 11/05/1994. CBDT Circular No. 1916, d. 11/05/1994.

13 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Prabhadevi Murarka Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sharmita Murarka I.T.A. No. 57/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sabita Dey 23.1. As the assessee has not earned any dividend income, the disa the assessee has not earned any dividend income, the disa the assessee has not earned any dividend income, the disallowance made is hereby deleted in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court’s hereby deleted in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court’s hereby deleted in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court’s decision is the case of M/s Ashika Global Securities Ltd Ashika Global Securities Ltd. (supra) 24. Ground Nos. 4 & 5 are Ground Nos. 4 & 5 are dismissed as general in nature.

14 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Prabhadevi Murarka Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sharmita Murarka I.T.A. No. 57/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sabita Dey 27.1. The ld. D/R, on the other hand, opposed the contentions of the assessee and e ld. D/R, on the other hand, opposed the contentions of the assessee and e ld. D/R, on the other hand, opposed the contentions of the assessee and submitted that the assessing officer has given reasonable credit of submitted that the assessing officer has given reasonable credit of ₹ 3 lakhs and that no ₹ 3 lakhs and that no further credit need be given under the facts and circumstances. He relied on the order of further credit need be given under the facts and circumstances. He relied on the order of further credit need be given under the facts and circumstances. He relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the same be upheld. e ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the same be upheld.

4. We are, therefore, of the opinion that We are, therefore, of the opinion that the findings of the Tribunal are totally perverse and far the findings of the Tribunal are totally perverse and far from the realities of life. In the peculiar facts of this case we answer the question in favour of from the realities of life. In the peculiar facts of this case we answer the question in favour of from the realities of life. In the peculiar facts of this case we answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue thereby deleting the aforesaid addition of Rs. 3,87,364. the assessee and against the revenue thereby deleting the aforesaid addition of Rs. 3,87,364. the assessee and against the revenue thereby deleting the aforesaid addition of Rs. 3,87,364.”

28.1. Adopting the reasons given by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the above case, we Adopting the reasons given by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the above case, we Adopting the reasons given by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the above case, we are of the considered opinion that the jewellery found in the case of Smt. Sabit Dey, the are of the considered opinion that the jewellery found in the case of Smt. Sabit Dey, the are of the considered opinion that the jewellery found in the case of Smt. Sabit Dey, the old widow should be considered reasonable old widow should be considered reasonable as it is only 662.4 gms as compared to t as it is only 662.4 gms as compared to the 906.900 gms, considered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. 906.900 gms, considered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The gold and jewellery The gold and jewellery found are held as explained for the same reasons as given by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in are held as explained for the same reasons as given by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in are held as explained for the same reasons as given by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the above referred case. In the result, this Ground of the assessee is allowed. . In the result, this Ground of the assessee is allowed. . In the result, this Ground of the assessee is allowed.

Kolkata, the Kolkata, the 1st day of October, 2019. Sd/- Sd/- [S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] [J. Sudhakar Reddy J. Sudhakar Reddy] Judicial Member Accountant Member Accountant Member Dated : 01.10.2019 {SC SPS} 16 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Prabhadevi Murarka Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sharmita Murarka I.T.A. No. 57/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sabita Dey Copy of the order forwarded to: Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Prabhadevi Murarka 1/C, Madevilla Garden Kolkata – 700 019 2. Sharmita Murarka 1/C, Madevilla Garden Kolkata – 700 019 3. Sabita Dey 1/C, Madevilla Garden Kolkata – 700 019 4. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-XVIII, Kolkata 5. CIT(A)- 6. CIT- , 7. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. . CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.