ACIT, Patiala V. Smt. Poonam Singla, Patiala

ITA 1120/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 77157 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AAKARSHAN SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: K P BAJAJ
• Keywords: Assessment record

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1119 /CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 A.C.I.T VS. SMT. MONIKA SINGLA, CENTRAL CIRCLE C/O M/S JAGDISH JEWELLERS PV T. LTD. PATIALA PATIALA PAN NO. ADHPS3263M & ITA NO. 1120 /CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 A.C.I.T, VS. SMT. POONAM SINGLA CENTRAL CIRCLE C/O M/S JAGDISH JEWELLERS P VT. LTD. PATIALA PATIALA PAN NO. AABPS4287J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. AAKARSHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SH. K.P. BAJAJ DATE OF HEARING : 16/06/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19/06/2014 ORDER PER T.R. SOOD, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04/09/2013 OF CIT(A)-I, LUDHIANA. 1119/CHD/2013 2. IN THE APPEAL REVENUE HAS RAISED THE GROUND WHIC H IS AS UNDER: THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 13,43,959/- WITHOUT APPRECIATIN G THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE JEWELLERY FOUND IN HER POSSESSION EITHER DURING SEARCH ACTION OR AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT B EFORE A.O. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT SEAR CH WAS CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOLLOWING JEWELLERY WAS FOUND F ROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE : GOLD JEWELLERY RS. 6,38,260/- DIAMOND JEWELLERY RS. 8,44,000/- RS. 14,82,260/- 4. ON AN ENQUIRY REGARDING EXPLANATION FOR THE SOUR CE OF THE JEWELLERY IT WAS EXPLAINED AS UNDER : WE ARE A JOINT FAMILY. AT THE TIME OF SEARCH OF THE FOLLOWING QUANTITIES OF GOLD ORNAMENTS AND DIAMOND JEWELLERY WERE FOUND :- NAME OF FAMILY MEMBER GOLD JEWELLERY DIAMOND JEWELLERY VALUE SMT. KAUSHALAYA DEVI (MYSELF) 2591 GMS 285.5 29,94,640 SMT. MONICA SINGLA 830 GMS 555.4 14,82,260 SMT. POONAM SINGLA 1120 GMS 317.0 16,27,660 61,04,560 IT MAY BE FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE FAMILY IS LIVI NG TOGETHER IN THE SAME HOUSE AND THE JEWELLERY BELONGING TO DIFFERENT LADIES OF THE HOUSE IS USED INTERCHANGEABLY. SINCE THE FAMILY IS RUNNING J EWELLERY BUSINESS, THE ITEMS OF GOLD AND DIAMOND ARE GOT REPLACED FROM TIM E TO TIME KEEPING IN VIEW THE WEARING TREND IN THE SOCIETY. IT MAY BE NO TICED THAT IN MY WEALTH TAX RETURN OF SMR. KAUSHALAYA DEVI FILED FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 THE TOTAL VALUE OF JEWELLERY HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS. 56,06,876/-. IN THE BALANCE SHEETS OF S/SHRI SUSHAM SINGLA AND MANOJ SI NGLA AND MANOJ SINGLA, THE JEWELLERY OF THE VALUE OF RS. 2,57,000/ - AND RS. 2,70,000/-. AS PER THE WEALTH TAX RETURN OF SMT. POONAM SINGLA 517 GMS OF GOLD ORNAMENT HAVE BEEN SHOWN. THE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF WEALTH IS ENCLOSED. S/SHRI SUSHAM SINGLA AND MANOJ SINGLA ALS O RECEIVED JEWELLERY FROM THE AUNTY OF THEIR DECEASED FATHER AS PER THE COPY OF THE WILL FORMING PART OF THE SEIZED RECORD. SH. JAGDISH CHAND, THE H EAD OF THE FAMILY AND HUSBAND OF SMT. KAUSHALAYA DEVI HAD ALSO BEEN FILIN G HIS RETURNS AND THE JEWELLERY STUDDED WITH DIAMONDS AND WEIGHTING 71 GM S AND 50 CARATS OF DIAMONDS WAS ALSO SHOWN IN HIS WEALTH TAX RETURN FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991-92, COPY OF WHICH IS ENCLOSED. EVEN OTHERWISE, AS PER CIRCULAR OF THE BOARD HELD BY THE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL TO BE BIN DING, IN SO FAR AS POSSESSION THE SAME WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE, JEWELLERY WEIGHING 500 GMS PER MARRIED FEMALE, 100 GMS PER MALE PERSON AND 50 GMS PER CHILD CAN BE CONSIDERED AS EXPLAINED. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS NO PART OF THE JEWELLERY FOUND IN THE HOUSE IS EXPLAINED. IN VIEW OF THESE F ACTS, NO ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT IS CALLED FOR. THE ABOVE REPLY WAS NOT FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORY BY THE AO BECAUSE : 1. JEWELLERY WAS FOUND/ SEIZED SEPARATELY FROM TH E BEDROOMS / POSSESSIONS OF THE LADIES OF THE FAMILY I.E. SMT. K AUSHALYA DEVI, SMT. MONICA SINGLA & SMT. POONAM SINGLA AND WAS VALUED S EPARATELY BY THE VALUER. SMT. KAUSHALAYA DEVI HAS DECLARED TOTLAL JE WELLERY OF RS. 5736500/- FOR THE A/Y 2006-07 IN HER WEALTH TAX RET URN AND OUT OF THAT GOLD JEWELLERY IS WORTH RS. 7,36,500/- AND REMAININ G JEWELLERY OF RS. 5000000/- IS DIAMOND JEWELLERY. IN THE SAME WAY SMT . KAUSHALAYA DEVI DECLARED JEWELLERY OF RS. 5606876/- FOR THE A/Y 200 5-06 IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN. OUT OF THE SAID JEWELLERY, GOLD JEWELLERY I S WORTH RS. 606876/- AND DIAMOND JEWELLERY IS WORTH RS. 5000000/- DECLARED I N VDIS. THEREFORE, IT IS PROVED THAT THE JEWELLERY OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT COVERED IN THE JEWELLERY OF SMT. KAUSHALAYA DEVI. 2. THERE IS NO QUESTION OF INTERCHANGEABILITY OF TH E JEWELLERY AMONG THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE JEWELLERY WAS FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND JEWELLERY WORTH RS. 2994640/- WAS ALSO FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF HER MOTHER IN LAW SMT. KAUSHALYA DEVI. IN THE SAME WAY, JEWELLERY WORTH RS. 1627860/- WAS ALS O FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF HER SISTER IN LAW SMT. POONAM SINGLA. THEREFORE THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR INTERCHANGEABILITY OF THE JEWE LLERY AS ALL THE LADIES OF FAMILY HAD MORE THAN SUFFICIENT JEWELLERY TO WEAR. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS COOKED STORY TO PROVE THE JEWEL LERY FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH WHILE NO DIAMOND JEWELLERY WAS REPLA CED FROM GOLD JEWELLERY AS PER ASSESSMENT RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE . 4. THE BOARD CIRCULAR REGARDING SEIZURE OF JEWELLER Y, SPECIFIES ABOUT NON SEIZURE OF JEWELLERY WEIGHING 500 GMS PER MARRI ED FEMALE, 100 GMS PER MALE PERSON AND 50 GM PER CHILD BY THE SEARCH P ARTY, BUT IT DOES NOT SPECIFY THAT THE NON SEIZED JEWELLERY AS MENTIONED ABOVE WILL BE TREATED AS EXPLAINED, THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE H AS NO WEIGHT. 5. AT PRESENT THERE IS TREND OF WEARING OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY INSTEAD OF GOLD JEWELLERY, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT JUSTIFIED T HAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD REPLACE HER DIAMOND JEWELLERY WITH THE GOLD JEWELLE RY. THUS, THE SAID GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NO WEIGHT. 6. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN VALUE OF JEWELLERY IN HER STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 1 3,43,959/- TOWARDS UN EXPLAINED JEWELLERY TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. ON APPEAL SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE AO WERE REITERA TED AND THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND FORCE IN THE SAME AND ALSO NOTED THAT THIS ISSUE HA S BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. KAUSHLAYA DEVI IN ITA NO. 1301/CHD/201 0 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE ADDITION. 6. BEFORE US LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT, CEN TRAL CIRCLE PATIALA VS. SMT.KAUSHLAYA DEVI IN ITA NO. 1301/CHD/2010 AND THE ISSUE WAS DEC IDED AGAINST THE REVENUE. WE FURNISHED THE COPY OF THIS ORDER. 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSION WE FIND THE IDENTICAL ISSUES CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN AY 2007-08 IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. SMT. KAUSHLAYA DEVI (SUPRA). THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED VIDE PARA 7 WH ICH IS AS UNDER : AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE. WHE N THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY FILED WEALTH TAX RETURN IN WHICH TOTAL JEWE LLERY DECLARED WAS RS. 53,49,200/-, RS. 56,06,876/- AND RS. 57,36,500/- FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, 2005-06 AND 2006-07 WHEREAS THE ACTUAL JEW ELLERY FOUND WAS AMOUNTING TO RS. 29,94,640/-. IT IS ALWAYS POSSIBLE THAT LADIES OF THE HOUSE MAY EXCHANGE JEWELLERY ITEMS WITH EACH OTHER AND IF THE HUSBAND IS RUNNING A JEWELLERY SHOP, SOME ITEMS MAY HAVE BEEN EXCHANGED FOR A TEMPORARY PERIOD WITH THE SHOP ITEMS. THIS EXPLANAT ION SEEMS TO BE TOTALLY REASONABLE AND HAS BEEN CORRECTLY ACCEPTED BY THE C IT(A). ACCORDINGLY WE FIND NOTHING WRONG WITH HIS ORDER AND CONFIRM TH E SAME. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER WE DECIDE THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE REVENUE. ITA NO. 1120/CHD/2013 9. IN CASE OF SMT. POONAM SINGLA, THE ISSUE IS SAME AND THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER THE ISSUE IS DECIDED AGAINST THE REVENU E. 10. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE A RE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 19/06/20 14 SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R.SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 19 TH JUNE, 2014 AG COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR