SMT. VIMAL SOOD L/H SH. NAVEEN SOOD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

PER SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. “That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law in upholding the action of the Ld. AO in making an addition of Rs. 52,500/- being 1/3rd of the total addition made by Ld. AO of Rs. 1,57,500/- allegedly on account of unexplained jewellery.

2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT (A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 52,500/- is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in passing the impugned order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard.

at any stage and all the grounds are without prejudice to each other.”

2. Briefly stated facts are that in the search and seizure operations that were conducted in the residential premises of the assessee, jewellery worth Rs. 4,40,294/- was found in the bedroom of the assessee and jewellery worth Rs. 3,46,683/- was found from the locker with Punjab National Bank, Faridabad. As per the valuation made by the departmental valuer the weight of the jewellery was 650 gms. Having regard to the CBDT Circular with respect to the limits of jewellery, the jewellery was left with the assessee. Assessee explained before the AO that she as an old lady of 77 years, her husband 82 years and keeping in view the status and age of the assessee the jewellery was well within the reasonable limits.

AO considered the culture and religion prevalent in Hindu Society, status of the assessee and tradition of giving jewellery at the time of marrgiage, birth of child and on other occasion, and accepted 500 gms of jewellery as explained and treated the remaining 150 gms as unexplained investment and made an addition of Rs. 1,57,500/- equivalent to its worth. In appeal Ld. CIT (A) further considered it fit to give further credit of 100 gms in the hands of the husband and restricted the addition 250 gms only, which the assessee is challenging now in this appeal.

4. We have gone through the record. AO recorded the fact that the assessee had not furnished any documentary evidences in respect of the acquisition of jewellery found at the residence as well as in the bank locker of the assessee. However, having regard to the culture and status of the assessee and the tradition prevalent in the Hindu Society he accepted jewellery of 500 gms as explained and treated the balance of 150 gms as an unexplained. In the same set of circumstances, the Ld. CIT (A) had taken a further lenient view and accepted another 100 gms as explained in the hands of the husband. It is only the remaining 50 gms that is treated as unexplained and by valuing the same at Rs. 1050/- per gm the addition was made. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and also that no evidence whatsoever was produced by the assessee before the authorities below, we find it difficult to hold that they have committed any error. Absolutely there is no material before us to take a contrary view from the view taken by the Ld. CIT (A). We, therefore, uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT (A) and dismissed the grounds of appeal.