SRI VIVEKANANDA BERA,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 27, HALDIA, HALDIA

Date of concluding the hearing : February 27th , 2019 Date of pronouncing the order : March 20th ,2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :- This appeal by the assessee and is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 7, Kolkata (hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT (A)’), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dated 16.09.2016.

2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the gift received from mother to Rs.1,50,000.00 (i.e. 50% of the claim).” 4. After hearing rival contentions and perusing the papers on record and the orders of the authorities below as well as case law cited, we hold as follows. 4.1 The assessee’s claim is that he has received/inherited ancestral gold of 3094.510 grams from his father. It was submitted that the assessee’s father was jeweller and his licence date back to the year 1963. It was submitted that the assessee’s father was in the business as a jeweller for more than 50 years and that the father has expired leaving the jewellery business to his son. Under the circumstances, it is argued that inheritance of gold of 3094.510 grams, claimed by the assessee is reasonable and there is no basis for the ld. CIT(A) in directing to allow only 1000.00 grams of gold as inheritance. 4.2 The ld. CIT(A) has stated at Para 4.2.3(d) at Page 7 of his order that “existence of some inherited gold after rolling and re-rolling for so many years is believable.” While doing so, he directed the Assessing Officer to accept one 1 kg gold in the place of 3.09 kgs of gold claimed by the assessee. In our opinion, there is no logic for such quantification. When it is accepted that the father of the assessee was in jewellery business for more than 50 years and the inheritance of gold as well as jewellery business is also accepted as a fact, treating 1 kg as inherited gold and 2 kgs as unexplained gold is arbitrary view. There is no basis to come to such conclusion. The addition is made on conjectures and surmises. Hence, we delete this addition and allow this ground of the assessee. 5. The second issue is the acceptance of 50% of the amount claimed as gift received from mother. The mother of the assessee claimed to have given to the assessee cash gift of Rs.3,00,000/-. While this fact that the cash gift was given is not disputed, the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) chose to accept only Rs.1,50,000/- as a genuine gift. We fail to understand this logic. This is without any basis. In case, the mother of the assessee has no source of fund, addition may be considered in her assessment, if law permits. Part acceptance of the statement will not suffice. Hence, these grounds raised

by the assessee are allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Kolkata, the 20th March, 2019.