DEEPAK KHURANA,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers

ITA 2735/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 September 2023AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)4 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had already provided benefit to the assessee based on a CBDT circular regarding presumption of certain gold left out of seizure. The Tribunal found no evidence or justification from the assessee to support their claim for the remaining addition.

What were the facts?

During a search operation, the Assessing Officer (AO) added 933 grams of gold valued at Rs. 22,39,392/- as unexplained. The assessee claimed this gold was ancestral and received during marriage. The CIT(A) confirmed an addition of Rs. 4,39,392/- for 183.08 grams of gold, considering a certain weight as unexplained.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) for unexplained gold is justified, considering the assessee's claims and the applicability of CBDT instructions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

For Respondent: Shri T James Singson, CIT( DR)

Hearing: 06.09.2023Pronounced: 14.09.2023

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 31.01.2018 of CIT(A)-24, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in Appeal No. 38/16-17 arising out of an appeal before it against the order dated 29.02.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the ACIT, Central Circle-06, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the Ld. AO). Page 1 of 4

ITA No.- 2735/Del/2018 Shri Deepak Khurana 2. Heard and perused the record.

None has appeared by the Assessee, as the case was called and the record shows that the matter has been listed for hearing since 24.02.2021 on 11 occasions and the notice issued has been received back with the remark “left”. Accordingly, arguments of Ld. DR were heard and he supported the findings of the authorities below.

Appreciating the matter on record, it comes up that in consequence to search and seizure operation conducted by the Department on 29.10.2013 the AO added 933 grams of Gold valued @ 2400 per gram total Rs. 22,39,392/- which assessee has claimed to be ancestral and received in at the time of marriage, and further purchased on various occasion.

4.1 Ld. CIT(A) by giving benefit to the assessee of the CBDT Instruction Number 1916 dated 11.05.1994, benefitted the assessee with following findings in Para 4.7 of the order of CIT(A).

“4.7 Looking at totality of circumstances, to my mind, it would be reasonable to assume that the appellant would be having stree dhan' in form of jewelry of approximately 500 gms for appellant's wife being married lady, 250 grams for unmarried girl, and 320.84 gms for the appellant (as per bills submitted before the AOL The weight of the gold jewellery is more than the wad allowance. Therefore, the gold jewellery of 18308 gms (1253.92- (500+250+320.84 gms)) is treated as unexplained and corresponding addition of Rs. 4,39,392/-(183.08gms @Rs 2400 per gram) is confirmed.”

In our considered view the Ld. CIT(A) has already benefited the assessee on the basis of CBDT Circular giving presumption to certain quantity of gold or jewellery to be Page 2 of 4

ITA No.- 2735/Del/2018 Shri Deepak Khurana left out of seizure at time of the time of search. There is no evidence and justification from the assessee with regard to the addition sustained.

Grounds raised in the appeal have no substance and the appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 14 .09.2023

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →