Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH ‘ A ’
Before: SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
Per Shri Inturi Rama Rao, A.M. : This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Bangalore dt.26.5.2017 for the Assessment Year 2012-13.
The revenue raised the following grounds :
Briefly stated the facts of the case are as under :
3.1 The respondent-assessee is an individual. There was a search and seizure action under the provisions of Section 132 of the Income Tax Act,
1961 (in short 'the Act') in the case of M/s. R N Shanmugam, Bangarpet on 20.12.2011, husband of the respondent-assessee. During the course of search and seizure action, as per inventory drawn, an estimated jewellery of 3,979 grams of gold and 20 kgs of silver was found. Out of which 2 kgs of gold seized by the authorities. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer had brought to tax the value of such gold jewellery. On appeal, the learned CIT (Appeals), he deleted the addition on account of gold/silver by accepting the explanation of the assessee that gold of 776.07 grams of and silver of 10 kgs belongs to daughter-in-law namely Smt. Gayathri and Smt. Gayathri also filed an Affidavit. Further the addition on account of balance of gold was deleted placing reliance on the Instruction No.1916 dt.11.5.1994 of CBDT wherein it was stated that credit of 500 gms of gold for each member of the family should be given.
Being aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us.
Ground Nos.1 & 6 are general in nature and no adjudication is required.
Ground No.2 challenges the relief given by the learned CIT (Appeals) in respect of jewellery of 878 grams of gold. The learned CIT
(Appeals) given relief based on the Instruction of CBDT Instruction No.1916 (supra) wherein the Board directed that the field officer not to seize gold and jewellery of 500 gms of gold for a married lady, 250 grams for unmarried lady and 100 grams of male member of family. The co- ordinate bench of the Tribunal, has been consistently holding that the addition cannot be made in respect of jewellery in terms of Instruction No.1916 of CBDT (supra). Reliance was placed on the decision of Shri M. Dinesh Kumar Vs. DCIT in Dt.23.10.2017.
Since the decision of the learned CIT (Appeals) is based on the decision of the ITAT, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of learned CIT (Appeals). Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed.
6. Ground Nos.3, 4 & 5 are challenging the relief granted by the learned CIT (Appeals) merely based on Affidavit filed by Smt. Gayathri, the assessee's daughter-in-law ignoring the fact that no evidentiary proofs have been submitted that the gold jewellery weighing 776.70 grams and silver weighing 10 kgs does not belongs to the assessee, but belongs to Smt. Gayathri. We find from the record that the assessee has been maintaining the stand right from the stage of proceedings before
Assessing Officer that this much of jewellery belongs to daughter-in- law of the assessee and therefore should not be assessed in the hands of the assessee. The assessee also filed an affidavit from Ms. Gayathri before the learned CIT (Appeals) holding that this jewellery belongs to daughter-in-law of the assessee. Considering the contentions of Affidavit, the learned CIT (Appeals) granted relief. The veracity of the Affidavit is not in doubt and even before the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer took same stand. Therefore, in the absence of any material on record the Affidavit and the order of learned CIT (Appeals) cannot be faulted with. Accordingly, the ground Nos. 3 to 5 are dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on the 25th day of May, 2018.