Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘J’ MUMBAI
Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri D. Karunakar Rao
आदेश / O R D E R
Per Joginder Singh(Judicial Member) This appeal is by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 22/01/2010 passed by the ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai. Only ground raised in this appeal pertains to upholding the addition of Rs.7,36,000/- on account of 950 gms. of unexplained jewellery, found during search.
During hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Shashi Tulsiyan, invited our attention to instruction number 1916 (F. No.286/63/93-IT(INV. II) dated 11/05/1994 by claiming that addition has been wrongly made by the Revenue by placing reliance upon the decision in the case of Shri Ajay Doshi vs ACIT (ITA No.106/Mum/2010) for A.Y. 2007-08, order dated 23/12/2011. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR, Shri K. Ravi Ramachandran, contended that the assessee has already given the benefit of 181.500 gms, therefore, to this extent the addition may be sustained.
2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that search and seizure action u/s 132 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act) was carried out at the residential premises/bank locker of the assessee, wherein, gold jewellery and loose papers were found and seized. The assessee was asked to explain the mode and source of the possession of the seized goods. The gold jewellery weighing 1809. 200 gms was found. As per the Revenue, 950 gms. of jewellery was found excessive. The working of the jewellery is reproduced hereunder:-
Particulars Grams Gold Jewellery at residence 1699.200 Jewellery on person 110.000 1809.200 Less: Pratiksha B Shah………. Wife 500 Khusi Brijesh Shah………Daughter 250 Brijesh Shah………………..Self 100 Dalpatrai F Shah………….Father- 100 950 859.200 Purchases A.Y. 2005-06 83.050 A.Y. 2006-07 98.450 181.500 Excess Gold Jewellery in gms 678 The ld. Assessing Officer made addition of 950 gms as unexplained jewellery at the rate of Rs.775 per grams resulting into addition of Rs.7,36,250/-. On appeal, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the same. The assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal.
2.2. If the observation made in the assessment order, leading to addition made to the total income, conclusion drawn in the impugned order, material available on record, assertions made by the ld. respective counsel, if kept in juxtaposition and analyzed, on perusal of record and consideration of instruction number 1916 (F. No.286/63/ 93-IT(INV. II) dated 11/05/1994, the jewellery/ornaments to the extent of 500 gms, per married lady, 250 gms per unmarried lady and 100 gms., per male member of the family, need not to be seized, thus, if the benefit of the aforesaid is granted to the assessee, only 181 gms. of jewellery remained unexplained, thus, the addition is confirmed only to this extent. The ld. Assessing Officer is directed accordingly. Finally, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. This order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of the ld. representative from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 30/12/2015.
Sd/- Sd/- (D. Karunakar Rao) (Joginder Singh) लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य /JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated : 01/01/2016 f{x~{tÜ? P.S/.�न.स. आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant (Respective assessee) 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT, Mumbai. 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT(A)- , Mumbai, 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file.