The order of the Bench was delivered by
P. M. JAGTAP (Accountant Member).-This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-7, Hyderabad dated December 11, 2013 and the solitary issue arising out of the same relates to the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained jewellery found during the course of search, which is sustained by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to the extent ofRs. 3 lakhs.
The assessee, in 'the present case, is an individual. A search and seizure action under section 132 was conducted in the case of the assessee on October 7, 2009. During, the course of survey, jewellery weighing 1,096 grams and silver articles weighing 2 kgs, worth Rs. 14,79,990 and Rs. 49,000 respectively were found from the possession of the assessee. While explaining these valuables found during the course of search, it was submitted by the assessee that out of the gold 1,096 grams, he had purchased 625 grams on December 3, 2007 for a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs and the same was duly disclosed in the financial statement of the relevant year. As regards the balance gold jewellery of 471 grams, it was submitted by the assessee that the same represented streedhan of his wife, which was received by her on the 6cbision of marriage, birth of a child and subsequent birthdays and other functions over a period of 20 to 25 years. The explanation of the assessee as regards jewellery representing streedhan of his wife received on different occasions was not accepted by the Assessing Officer, in the absertce' bf any' evidance' to' support and substantiate the same. He, therefore, treated the jewellery of the value of Rs. 9,28,990 as unexplained and an addition to' thatextertt was made by him to the total income of the assessee.
On appeal, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) partly accepted the explanation of theassessee and allowed relief of Rs. 6,28,990, thereby sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer on this issue to the extent of Rs. 3 lakhs. While doing so, he held that credit to the extent of 250 grams of gold jewellery could reasonably be given on account of streedhan of the assessee's wife and balance 220 grams of jewellery should be treated as unexplained, having value of about Rs. 3 lakhs. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard the arguments of both sides and also perused the relevant material on record. Learned counsel for the assessee has relied on the Instruction of the Central Board of Direct Taxes No. 1916 of May 11, 1994 laying down the guidelines that in the case of a person not assessed to wealth tax, gold jewellery and ornaments to the extent of 500 grams for a married lady need not be seized. Although the learned Departmental representative has contended that the said guidelines laid down in the circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes are applicable only for a seizure of jewellery and ornaments during the course of search, it is observed that the Tribunal in various cases has relied on the said circular to hold that the guidelines laid down by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in Circular No. 1916 are suggestive of normal quantity of gold ornaments held by any Indian family. In one such decisions rendered in the case of Asst. efT v. Rameshchandra R. Patel [2004] 89 ITD 223 (Ahd), Ahmedabad Bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has held that the Central Board of Direct Taxes Instruction No. 1916 dated May 11, 1994 impliedly suggests the quantity of jewellery that a family is supposed to hold as received at the time of marriage from parents and in laws. It was also held that though the said Instruction gives a guideline in the matter of seizure, the same can be extended to treat the quantum of jewellery as mentioned therein as explained, keeping in view the customs and practices in the Indian society. Keeping in view the decisions of the Tribunal as well as the Instruction No. 1916 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, we hold that the gold jewellery of 472 grams found during the course of search can reasonably be treated as explained, being the streedhan of the assessee's wife, having been received by her on the occasion of marriage as well as subsequent occasions over the period. Accordingly, we delete the addition of Rs. 3 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this issue and allow this appeal of the assessee.
5 In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed.
6 The order pronounced in the open court on February 20, 2015.