ASHA DAGA, RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON V. .DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 408/RPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Asha Daga, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Raipur-3, which confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2015-16. The additions were made following a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act, where unaccounted gold jewelry and bullion were found. The Tribunal examined whether the approval for the assessment under Section 153D was valid and whether the additions made for the unexplained investments in gold and bullion were justified.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 469802 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 04-09-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Smt. Mala Gulani vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur, DCIT vs. Arjun Dass Kalwani, CIT vs. M.S. Agrawal (HUF), Smt. Sulochana Devi Jaiswal Vs. DCIT, Hitesh Golecha Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S.L.ANURAGI
• Assessee Lawyers: R. B. DOSHI
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Search and seizure
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 250; 132; 153A; 69; 69A; 101

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ रायपुर मɅ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 408/RPR/2024 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Asha Daga, Near Vaishno Mata Mandir, Choukhadiya Para, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) PAN No. ACVPD1476C .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur, Aaykar Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001 ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri R.B. Doshi, CA. Revenue by : Shri S.L. Anuragi, CIT-DR. सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 26.11.2024 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 12.12.2024 2 Asha Daga Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur ITA No.408/RPR/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Raipur-3, dated 10.07.2024, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) under Sec. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 30.09.2016 for the assessment year 2015-16. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: “Ground No. 1: 1 Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 20,93,091/ made by AO on account of value of jewellery/ gold bullion found during search without appreciating the facts of the case properly. The addition made by AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary and not justified. Ground No.2: The assessment order passed by the AO and confirmed by Id. CIT(A) is illegal, ab initio void inasmuch as the approval given by Id. JCIT u/s 153D is not in accordance with provisions of law. The assessment order is liable to be quashed in absence of valid approval u/s 153D. Ground No.3: The appellant reserves the right to amend, modify or add any of the ground/s of appeal.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee was subjected to search and seizure proceedings u/s 132 of the Act on 17.09.2014. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee for the year under consideration, i.e AY 2015-16 on 22.05.2015. In compliance, the assessee filed her return of income declaring an income of Rs.4,05,760/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s 143(2) of the Act. 3 Asha Daga Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur ITA No.408/RPR/2024 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the A.O. that gold jewellery/ornaments and bullion was found lying in the Locker no. 49 with Dena Bank, Branch: Rajnandgaon which was jointly held by Smt. Asha Daga (assesssee) and Shri. Vishal Daga (son of the assessee), viz. (i) gold jewelry/ornaments (wt. 1037.700 grams); and (ii). bullion (wt. 329 grams), as under: Place where items found Items Found Seized Locker No.49 at Dena Bank, Rajnandgaon Jewellery Gold Ornaments, Bullion Diamond Gold Jewellery 1037.700 gms. Worth Rs.28,32,921/- Bullion – 329.000 gms worth Rs.8,98,170/- Gold Jewellery 210.200 gms. Worth Rs.5,73,846/- Bullion – 329.000 gms worth Rs.8,98,170/- 4. The AO, in the backdrop of the CBDT instruction No. 1916, dated 11.05.1994, which provided that 500 grams of gold jewellery/ornaments per married lady and 100 grams per male member of the family need not be seized in the course of the search proceedings, thus, to the said extent held 600 grams of gold jewelry/ornaments (out of 1037.700 grams) in the hands of the aforementioned joint owners of the bank locker, viz. (i). Smt. Asha Daga (assessee): 500 grams; and (ii). Shri. Vishal Daga (son of the assessee): 100 grams as having been acquired by them from their disclosed sources. Accordingly, the AO held the remaining gold jewellery/ornaments of 437.700 grams [(1037.700 grams (minus) 500 grams 4 Asha Daga Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur ITA No.408/RPR/2024 (minus) 100 grams)] valued at Rs. 11,94,921/- as the unexplained investment of the assessee. Also, the A.O held the 329 grams of bullion valued at Rs. 8,98,170/- found in the aforesaid bank locker as the unexplained investment of the assessee. Accordingly, the AO vide his order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 30.09.2016, determined the income of the assessee for AY 2015-16 at Rs.24,98,851/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the CIT(A) are culled out as under: “3.2 Ground No.2 :-During the search and seizure proceedings at Locker No. 49 at Dena Bank, Rajnandgaon, which was registered in the name of the assessee and her son Sh. Vishal Daga, following gold jewelleries silver articles were found and seized:- Place where items found Items Found Seized Locker No.49 at Dena Bank, Rajnandgaon Jewellery Gold Ornaments, Bullion Diamond Gold Jewellery 1037.700 gms. Worth Rs.28,32,921/- Bullion – 329.000 gms worth Rs.8,98,170/- Gold Jewellery 210.200 gms. Worth Rs.5,73,846/- Bullion – 329.000 gms worth Rs.8,98,170/- Silver Article 5.000 kg Worth Rs.2,00,000/- --- During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee was requested to explain the sources of gold jewelleries and silver found from said Locker of the assessee. The assessee vide letter filed in this office on 11/08/2016 has explained the bullion found from the locker alongwith the self declaration. 5 Asha Daga Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur ITA No.408/RPR/2024 The explanation submitted by the assessee relating to bullion found has been carefully considered. However there is no merit in her explanation and therefore the same is not acceptable for the following reasons:- 1. Assessee could not produce any bills and vouchers in support of her claim of conversion of her old jewelleries into bullion. 2. Assessee has never filed wealth tax return for any of the A.Y. under consideration. As the assessee has failed to explain the sources of possession of gold bullion satisfactorily, therefore the entire amount of bullion found of 329 gms. amounting to Rs. 8,98,170/- is added to the total income of the assessee. During the course of search proceedings the assessee has explained the sources of gold jewelleries found of 1037.700 grms. The entire jewelleries found from the locker and her residence. The explanation submitted by the assessee has been carefully considered. However there is no merit in her explanation and therefore the same is not acceptable for the following reasons:- 1 The assessee could not produce any purchase bills of jewelleries in support of her claim. 2. The assessee and any of her family members had never filed wealth tax return for any of the A.Ys. under consideration. The total 1037.700 grms of gold jewelleries was found from the locker held in the name of the assessee and her son Shri Vishal Daga. Considering the various judgements passed by different judicial bodies in favour of the assessee, out of the above jewelleries found jewelleries to the tune of 500 grms in the case of the assessee and 100 grms in the case of her son is treated as explained considering them to have been received on various auspicious occasions. Therefore, as the assessee has failed to explain the sources of remaining jewelleries of 437.700gms (1037,700-500-100), the same is held as unexplained investment made by the assessee and an amount of Rs. 11,94,921/-( Rs. 28,32,921/ 1037.700 X 437.700) is added to the total income of the assessee in the Α.Υ. 2015-16 u/s 69 of the Act. During the appeal proceeding the appellant company to submitted the reply as under:- during the assessment proceeding, the AO observed that the appellant had submitted a reply on 11.08.2016 wherein she had explained the source of bullion found. Similarly, vide page 11 of the assessment order, the AO has observed that the appellant in the same reply provided the source of gold jewellery found from the locker. However, the AO felt the same to be not acceptable for the following reasons:- 1. The appellant could not produce any bills/vouchers in support of claim of conversion of old jewelleries into bullion/purchase bills of jewelleries. 6 Asha Daga Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur ITA No.408/RPR/2024 2. Appellant and any of her family members have not filed wealth tax return for the A.Y. under consideration. It is submitted that the appellant in the assessment proceedings, had submitted a letter on 11.08.2016 in response to questionnaire u/s 142(1) wherein vide answer to query no.4, the appellant very clearly stated that at the time of her marriage, she was given 750 grms of gold by her family/relatives & friends. It was out of this gold that the appellant decided to convert a part of it into bullion. In support of her statement, she deposed a confirmation confirming the above facts. Further, it is submitted that in our country, it is very common practice to convert old fashioned jewellery into bullion with a view that it would help the parents on the occasion of childerns's marriage. The appellant with the same mindset had converted old gold available with her into bullion. As regards bills and voucher, it is stated that because of passage of long time, the appellant does not possess evidence in respect of conversion of old gold into bullion. It is submitted that the appellant in such reply had explained the source of entire 1495.06 grams of jewellery found the locker and her residence which was inventoried vide annexure JF/1 dt. 17.09.2014 and JS/1 dt. 29.09.2014. Moreover, the appellant provided breakup of jewellery belonging to each member of her family. Such breakup of jewellery has also been reproduced on page 11 of the assessment order:- The details of jewellery found from locker no. 49 & from the residence of appellant are as follows:- Name of owner Quantity (net) (gms) Location Inventory Satyanarayan Daga 56.42 Bedroom of appellant & Satyanarayan Daga Annexure JF/1 dt. 17.09.2024 Asha Daga 371.03 Bedroom of appellant & Satyanarayan Dag & Locker No. 49 (Dena Bank) Annexure JF/1 dt. 17.09.2014 & 29.09.014 Rupali Daga 76.16 Bedroom of Vishal Daga & Shweta Daga Annexure JF/2 dt. 17.09.2014 Vishal Daga 33.11 Bedroom of Vishal and Shweta DAga Annexure JF/1 Dt. 29.09.2014 7 Asha Daga Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur ITA No.408/RPR/2024 Sweta Daga & her son (Souryaansh Daga) 512.10 Locker No. 49(Dena Bank) Annexure JF/1 dt. 29.09.2014 Sagar Daga 65.48 Bedroom of Sagar Daga & Swati Daga Annexure JF/3 dt. 17.09.2014 Swati Daga & her son (Divyansh Daga) 380.76 Bedroom of Sagar Daga & Swati Daga & Locker No. 49 (Dena Bank) Annexure JF/3 dt. 17.09.2014 & JF/1 dt.29.09.2014 Out of the total jewellery found 371.03 grams pertained to the appellant. This was received by the appellant on various auspicious occasions including her marriage from her family relatives and friends. It is submitted that neither the appellant nor her family members were required to file wealth tax return for the years under consideration, as their wealth did not exceed the wealth tax maximum amount which is chargeable to wealth tax. CBDT has prescribed that in case of a person not assessed to wealth tax, gold jewellery and ornaments to the extent of 500 grams per married lady, 250 grams per unmarried lady and 100 grams per male member of the family need not be Although seized. A the above instruction is respect of seizure of jewellery, it has been held in following cases that in the above instructions of CBDT would apply in assessment also, to treat such extent of jewellery as explained/unexplained. 1. Smt. Mala gulani vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur in ITA NO. 637/Nag/1996, order dt. 08.09.1997. 2. DCIT vs. Arjun Dass kalwani (2006) 101 ITD 337(Jodh.). 3. CIT vs. M.S. Agrawal (HUF) (2008) 11 DTR 169(MP). 4. Smt. Sulochana Devi Jaiswal Vs. DCIT (2004) 90 TTJ 974(Jab.) Thus it is submitted that since the appellant and member of her family held gold jewellery within the limits as prescribed by CBDT, no adverse inference should be drawn and the source of jewellery should be treated as explained. As per the above referred CBDT Instruction, following is the jewellery which is required to be considered as explained:- Name of family member Gender status & Marital status Grams gold to considered as explained Satyanarayan Daga(Appellant, s husband) Married Male 100grams 8 Asha Daga Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur ITA No.408/RPR/2024 Asha Daga (Appellant) Married female 500 grams Vishal Daga(Appellant,s son) Married male 100 grams Shweta Daga (Appellant daughter in law Married female 500 grams Souryansh DAga (Son of Vishal) Unmarried male 100 grams Divyansh Daga (son of Sagar) Unmarried male 100 grams Rupali Daga (daughter of appellant Unmarried female 250 grams Sagar Daga Married male 100 grams Smt. Swati Daga (Appellant’s daughter in law) Married female 500 grms Total 2250 grams As against the above explained gold of 2250 grams, total quantity of gold ornaments found during search at all places was 1247.90 grams(net) which was much within the limits prescribed CBDT. The fact that different jewellery items found during search belonged to different persons is also evident from the fact that various jewelleries were found at different place. As regards bills and vouchers, it is stated that because of passage of long time, the appellant and her family members do not possess evidence in respect of such jewellery. It is further stated that in day to day human life, it is quite impossible that every individual would keep the purchase bills intact for a long period under expectation that some income tax officer will ask for the bills. Similarly, on auspicious occasions when ornaments are gifted, no one would ask for preparation of gift deed etc. which has to be used as evidence. Therefore, on this account also no adverse inference should be drawn. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has furnished documentary evidence. The documentary evidence kept on record. On examination of all these documents, during the course of appeal proceedings the assessee was requested to explain the sources of gold jewelleries and silver found from said Locker of the assessee and submit the bill and vouchers. The assessee has failed to explain the sources of possession of gold bullion satisfactorily, and it is stated that because of passage of long time the appellant does not posses evidence in respect of conversion of old gold into bullion. 9 Asha Daga Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur ITA No.408/RPR/2024 Further, the course of search proceedings the assessee has explained the sources of gold jewelleries found of 1037.700 grms. The entire jewelleries found from the locker and her residence. The explanation submitted by the assessee has been carefully considered. However there is no merit in her explanation and therefore the same is not acceptable for the following reasons:- 1. The assessee could not produce any purchase bills of jewelleries in support of her claim. 2. The assessee and any of her family members had never filed wealth tax return for any of the A.Ys, under consideration. The total 1037.700 grms of gold jewelleries was found from the locker held in the name of the assessee and her son Shri Vishal Daga. Considering the various judgements passed by different judicial bodies in favour of the assessee, out of the above jewelleries found jewelleries to the tune of 500 grms in the case of the assessee and 100 grms in the case of her son is treated as explained considering them to have been received on various auspicious occasions. Therefore, as the assessee has failed to explain the sources of remaining jewelleries of 437.700gms (1037.700-500-100). I have perused the assessment order and finding of the Ld. AO. I find that the Ld. AO justified the making addition of Rs. 20,93,091/- (Rs. 8,98,170 + Rs. 11,94,921), is hereby confirmed. Therefore, appeal on these grounds is dismissed. 3. In the result, appeal are Dismissed. “ 6. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 7. We have heard the learned authorized representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his respective contentions. 8. Controversy involved in the present appeal hinges around two issues, viz. (i). that as to whether or not the approval granted by the Jt. CIT (Central), Raipur u/s 10 Asha Daga Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur ITA No.408/RPR/2024 153D of the Act is in accordance with the provisions of law?; and (ii). that as to whether or not the lower authorities are right in law and facts of the case in treating the gold jewellery/ornaments (Wt. 437.700 grams) and bullion (Wt. 329 grams) as an unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee? 9. Apropos the Ld. AR’s contention that the assessment framed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 30.09.2016 was illegal and void ab- initio for the reason that the Jt. CIT had failed to give his approval u/s.153D of the Act in accordance with the provision of law, we are unable to persuade ourselves to concur with the same. On a perusal of the record, we find that the Jt. CIT, Range- Central, Raipur vide his letter dated 22.09.2016 marked as F. No.Jt.CIT(C)/RPR/153D/2016-17/144 had, inter alia, granted his approval qua the draft assessment order passed by the A.O u/s. 153A and 143(3) of the Act in the case of the assessee for the assessment year(s) 2009-10 to 2015-16. The aforesaid letter of the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur dated 22.09.2016 granting approval u/s. 153D of the Act was received by the office of the ACIT, Circle-2, Raipur on 23.09.2016. 10. As the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur had, vide his letter dated 16.12.2016, inter alia, granted his approval u/s. 153D of the Act to the “draft assessment order” for the year under consideration i.e A.Y 2015-16, therefore, in our considered view the mandate of Section 153D of the Act stood duly complied with. Infact, a careful perusal of the letter dated 22.09.2016 (supra), reveals that the Jt. CIT had given certain specific instructions to the A.O, viz. (i). to incorporate in Para 6 of the order 11 Asha Daga Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur ITA No.408/RPR/2024 the seized material based on which receipt of commission was evident; (ii). to incorporate the findings during search proceedings; (iii). to incorporate the factum of giving opportunity to the assessee during the assessment proceedings and the reply of the assessee; (iv). incorporate the reasons as to why the AO disagreed with the reply of the assessee; and (v). to incorporate the justification of the A.O. in accepting the cash book when the assessee had stated that they do not maintain any books of accounts. At this stage, we may herein observe that the assessee had failed to place on record any material which would irrefutably substantiate his claim that there was no application of mind by the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur while granting the approval. Our aforesaid view that now when approval had been granted by the Jt. CIT u/s. 153D of the Act, dated 22.09.2016 then the obligation that was cast upon him under the aforesaid statutory provision stood duly complied with is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Hitesh Golecha Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur, TAXC No.76/2024, dated 10.04.2024. The Hon’ble High Court in its aforesaid order, after deliberating upon the similarly worded approval granted by the Jt. CIT, Range- Central, Raipur, had observed, that as the A.O. in the case before them had obtained a prior approval of the Jt. CIT, therefore, the mandate of Section 153D of the Act was duly complied with. It was further observed by the Hon’ble High Court that in a given case, it cannot be presumed on the mere say of the assessee that no application of mind was there while granting the approval. The Hon’ble High Court had further observed that the language used in the letter granting the approval 12 Asha Daga Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur ITA No.408/RPR/2024 revealed the subjective satisfaction that was arrived at based on the documents that were produced before the Jt. CIT. It was further observed, that on a perusal of the language of the approval letter, it cannot be presumed that there was no application of mind as the approval need not be a detailed assessment order. The Hon’ble High Court after pressing into service Section 114 of the Evidence Act had observed that in case where the official act had been done in accordance with official procedure, then it would lead to presumption that due diligence was followed. 11. As the facts involved in the present case remains the same as were there before the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Hitesh Golecha Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur (supra), wherein the Hon’ble High Court had looked into the similarly worded approval granted by the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur and had rejected the assessee’s claim that the said approval was granted without application of mind by the latter, therefore, we respectfully follow the same. 12. Accordingly, as the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur vide letter dated 22.09.2016 marked as F.No.Jt.CIT(C)/RPR/153D/2016-17/144 (copy placed on record) had, inter alia, granted the approval in the case of the assessee for the year under consideration, i.e. A.Y. 2015-16, therefore, we, in terms of our aforesaid observations finding no merit in the contentions advanced by the Ld. AR reject the same. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.2 raised by the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 13 Asha Daga Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur ITA No.408/RPR/2024 13. At the threshold, we may herein observe, that the assessee on being queried by the A.O., had claimed that the bullion (Wt. 329 grams) found lying in locker No. 49 with Dena Bank, Rajnandgaon was sourced out of conversion of the old jewellery/ornaments which she had received at the time of her marriage from her parents, relatives, and friends. Elaborating further, it was submitted by the assessee that she had got her old jewelry/ornaments converted into bullion as she wanted to use the same for making gold jewellery/ornaments on the occasion of the marriage of her daughter. However, as the assessee despite specific directions had failed to file with the A.O the bills/vouchers of conversion of old jewellery/ornaments into bullion, and thus, substantiate her aforesaid claim, therefore, the A.O held the same as her unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 14. We have thoughtfully considered the aforesaid issue and find no infirmity in the view taken by both the lower authorities. As the assessee had failed to place on record any supporting documentary evidence to support her claim that the bullion (Wt. 329 grams) that was found from locker no. 49 (supra) in the course of search & seizure proceedings, therefore, the same was held as her unexplained investment. At this stage, we may herein observe, that though the locker no.49 (supra) was jointly held by the assessee and Shri. Vishal Daga (supra), but as the assessee had owned the bullion (Wt. 329 grams) and had even attempted to explain the source of acquisition of the same, therefore, the A.O had rightly not drawn any adverse inference as regards the same in the hands of the other joint holder of the locker, viz. Shri. Vishal Daga (supra). We find that the AO in the assessment order, had 14 Asha Daga Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur ITA No.408/RPR/2024 observed, that as the assessee had neither produced the bills/vouchers in support of her claim of conversion of her old jewellery into bullion nor had filed any wealth tax return in the course of proceedings to substantiate the veracity of her said claim, therefore, in absence of any explanation forthcoming regarding the source of acquisition of bullion (Wt. 329 grams) it was rightly held as her unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 15. As the assessee had neither before lower authorities nor before us placed on record any material/documentary evidence which would substantiate her claim that it was her old jewellery that was got converted into bullion (Wt. 329 grams), therefore, we are of the view, that treating the value of the same of Rs.8,89,170/- as the assessee’s unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act does not suffer from any infirmity. We, thus, approve that addition to the aforesaid extent made by the AO, which, thereafter, had rightly been upheld by the CIT(A). 16. Apropos, the addition regarding the source of balance gold jewellery (Wt. 437.700 grams) (supra), we are unable to fully persuade ourselves to subscribe to the view taken by the lower authorities. Before proceeding any further, we may herein observe that the CBDT vide its instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994 had, inter alia, held that search parties shall not seize the gold jewellery/ornaments to the extent of, viz. (i) 500 grams per married lady; (ii) 250 grams per unmarried lady; and (iii) 100 grams per male member of the family. The aforesaid CBDT Instruction No. 1916 (supra) had thereafter been looked into by the co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal, viz., ITAT, Jodhpur Bench in DCIT vs. Arjun Dass Kalwani (2006) 15 Asha Daga Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur ITA No.408/RPR/2024 101 ITD 337 (Jodh) and ITAT Jabalpur Bench in case of Smt. Sulochana Devi Jaiswal vs. DCIT (2004) 90 TTJ 974 (Jab), wherein it was observed that the jewellery to the extent of the prescribed limit contemplated in the CBDT Instruction No. 1916 (supra) is not to be treated as having been acquired by the assessee out of unexplained sources. For the sake of clarity, we herein deem it fit to cull out the extracts of the aforesaid orders (relevant extracts): “A). DCIT vs. Arjun Dass Kalwani (supra) “6……………………………….We are reminded of the order passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Neena Syal vs. Asstt. CIT(2000) 69 TTJ (Chd) 516 : (1999) 70 ITD 62 (chd) in which it was held that CBDT Instruction No. F.288/632/93-IT (Inv.)-II dt. 11th May, 1994 containing guidelines for seizure of jewellery and ornaments in the course of search, was relevant with reference to the deeming provision of s. 69A as well. In this instruction, the possession of gold jewellery by married ladies upto 500 gms. has been held to be immune from seizure. The Chandigarh Bench in this case held that the possession of gold jewellery by married ladies to the extent of 500 gms. Should be considered as explained. Several orders have been passed all over India by difference Benches of the Tribunal accepting the possession of gold jewellery to the extent of 500 gms. Per married lady. Since Smt. Indra Had claimed jewellery of 350.5 gms in her possession, which is much below the prescribed limit of 500 gms. We are of the considered opinion that no addition can be held to be sustainable on this count and the learned CIT(A), was justified in deleting it…………..” B). Smt. Sulochana Devi Jaiswal vs. DCIT (supra) “35. We have considered the rival submissions. The Board vide its Circular No. 1916, dt. 11th May, 1994, has prescribed the limit of 500 gms. for gold jewellery which is not to be seized. In other words, the Board has considered the issue and felt that gold jewellery to the extent of 500 gms, could be possessed by an ordinary family. The intention behind such circular was, therefore, very clear. As the unexplained jewellery found during the course of search was much less than 500 gms., we have no hesitation in holding that the addition on account of unexplained investment in jewellery is not justified and the same is deleted.” 16 Asha Daga Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur ITA No.408/RPR/2024 17. We shall in the backdrop of the aforesaid CBDT instructions No.1916 (supra) read along with the aforesaid judicial pronouncements look into the view taken by the lower authorities which had held that the gold jewellery/ornaments (Wt. 437.700 grams) found lying in the locker no. 49 (supra) as the assessee’s unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 18. As is discernible from the orders of the lower authorities, we find that 1495.06 grams (net weight) of gold jewellery/ornaments were found from the locker no. 49 (supra) and residence of the assessee, Annexure JF/1, dated 17.09.2014. On a careful perusal of the list/inventory of gold jewellery/ornaments found from the residence of the assessee and her family members it transpires that the same comprises of, viz. (i). bedroom of Shri Satyanaryan Daga (assessee’s husband) and Smt. Asha Daga (i.e assessee): 178.450 grams, Annexure JF/Page No. 01, dated 17.09.2014 (APB-Page 46); (ii). bedroom of Shri. Vishal Daga (assessee’s son) and Smt. Shweta Daga (wife of Sh. Vishal Daga); Annexure JF/Page No. 02, dated 17.09.2014 (APB-Page 47): 109.774 grams; and (iii). bedroom of Shri. Sagar Daga (assessee’s son) and Smt. Swati Daga (wife of Sh. Sagar Daga); Annexure JF/Page No. 03, dated 17.09.2014 (APB-Page 48): 169.640 grams. 19. As the locker no. 49 (supra) was jointly held by Smt. Asha Daga (assessee) and Shri. Vishal Daga (son of the assessee), therefore, now when the assesseee had never owned the entire jewellery lying in the said locker, and in fact, had in the course of the assessment proceedings come forth with an explanation that the 17 Asha Daga Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur ITA No.408/RPR/2024 jewellery found during the course of search proceedings both from the residence and locker no. 49 (supra) belonged to her and the other family members, therefore, there could have been no justification for the A.O to have held 437.700 grams (supra) of gold jewellery/ornaments as the unexplained investment of the assessee. As the locker no. 49 (supra) was jointly held by the assessee and her son, viz. Shri. Vishal Daga, therefore, the drawing of adverse inferences as regards the balance gold jewellery/ornaments of 437.700 grams as the unexplained investment of the assessee can by no means be held to be justified. 20. As the locker no. 49 (supra) was also jointly owned by Shri. Vishal Daga (supra), therefore, the possibility that he would have for safe custody kept the gold jewellery/ornaments belonging to his wife, viz. Smt. Shweta Daga (supra) also in the said locker cannot be ruled out. On a similar footing, the possibility of the assessee having kept the gold jewellery of her husband, viz. Shri. Satyanarayan Daga (supra) in the said locker no. 49 (supra) is also very much possible. We shall considering the CBDT instruction No. 1916, dated 11.05.1994 as analyzed in the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, as per which 500 grams of gold jewellery/ornaments per married lady and 100 grams per male member of the family is not to be held as an unexplained investment, thus, in the backdrop of the gold jewellery/ornaments that were found from the residence (bedrooms) of the aforesaid joint owners of locker no. 49 (supra) and their family members look into the availability of the balance gold jewellery/ornaments with them to explain that found in the aforesaid locker. 18 Asha Daga Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur ITA No.408/RPR/2024 21. As observed by us hereinabove, 178.450 grams of gold jewellery/ornaments, Annexure JF/Page No. 01, dated 17.09.2014 (APB-Page 46) were found during the course of the search proceedings from the bedroom of Shri Satyanaryan Daga (assessee’s husband) and Smt. Asha Daga (i.e assessee). Accordingly, the assessee and her spouse could safely be held to be in possession of 421.55 grams of gold jewellery/ornaments [i.e 600 grams (minus) 178.450 grams] acquired from their explained sources. Also, as noticed by us hereinabove, 109.774 grams of gold jewellery/ornaments, Annexure JF/Page No. 02, dated 17.09.2014 (APB-Page 47) were found during the course of the search proceedings from the bedroom of Shri. Vishal Daga (assessee’s son) and Smt. Shweta Daga (wife of Sh. Vishal Daga). Accordingly, Shri. Vishal Daga (supra) and his spouse could safely be held to be in possession of 490.226 grams [i.e 600 grams (minus) 109.774 grams] of gold jewellery/ornaments acquired from their explained sources. As such, gold jewellery/ornaments aggregating to 911.776 grams [i.e 421.55 grams (+) 490.226 grams] as per the CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994 as analyzed in the aforesaid judicial pronouncements can safely be held to be available with the assessee and Shri. Vishal Daga (supra) to explain the source of the gold jewellery/ornaments found during the course of the search & seizure proceedings from their locker no. 49 (supra). Resultantly, the gold jewellery/ornaments of 125.924 grams [i.e 1037.700 grams (minus) 911.776 grams] found lying in the locker no. 49 (supra) is to be held as unexplained. At the same time, as the locker no. 49 (supra) was jointly held by the assessee and Shri. Vishal Daga (supra), 19 Asha Daga Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur ITA No.408/RPR/2024 therefore, 62.962 grams (50% of 125.924 grams] of gold jewellery/ornaments can safely be held as an unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee. 22. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations direct the A.O to restrict the addition in the case of the assessee to the extent of the value of 62.962 grams i.e Rs. 1,71,886/-. The Ground of appeal No. 1 is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 23. The Ground of appeal No. 3 being general is dismissed as not pressed. 24. Accordingly, we herein conclude, viz. (i). the addition of bullion (Wt. 329 grams) of Rs. 8,89,170/- is sustained; and (ii). the addition of balance gold jewelry/ornaments of 437.700 grams valued at Rs. 11,94,921/- made by the A.O. is scaled down to 62.962 grams valued at Rs. 1,71,886/-. 25. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in open court on 12th day of December, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA RAVISH SOOD (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 12th December, 2024. *Hem आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-1, Raipur (C.G.) 20 Asha Daga Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur ITA No.408/RPR/2024 4. The Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 (C.G) 5. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 6. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Ǔनजी सͬचव / Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur. "