Smt. Sharmila Singhvi, JODHPUR V. ACIT, JODHPUR

ITA 27/JODH/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3118 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 15-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A H GOHEL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJENDER JAIN; GAUTAM VAIDH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Question of law; Revised return
• Section: 132; 144

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 27/JODH/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 PAN: ABSPS 1170 Q SMT. SHARMILA SINGHVI VS. THE ACIT C/O SHRI U.C. JAIN, ADVOCATE CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 SHATRUNJAY HARI NAGAR, PALI ROAD JODHPUR JODHPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJENDER JA IN & SHRI GAUTAM VAIDH DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI A.H. GOHEL DATE OF HEARING : 12-06-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13-06-2013 ORDER PER R.C. SHARMA , A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) (CENTRAL), JAIPUR DATED 07-12-2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8-09 IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S 144 R.W.S. 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2.1 FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESS EE. 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING AN ADDITION OF RS. 3,47,440/- I N RESPECT OF GOLD JEWELLLERY WEIGHING 316.718 GMS 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASS ESSEE WITH REGARD TO SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF SUCH JEWELLERY WHILE SUSTAINING T HE ADDITION FOR 316.718 GMS. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE AND IN THE ALTERNATI VE :- A) THAT THE LD. CIT FAILED TO CONSIDER THE REASONAB LENESS OF JEWELLERY HELD WITH THE FAMILY IN THE LIGHT OF BOAR D CIRCULAR BEARING NO. 1916 DATED 11-05-1994 AND THE DECISION OF HON'B LE GUJARAT HIGH 2 COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RATANLAL VAYAPARI LAL J AIN REPORTED IN 339 ITR 351 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL MAY PLEASE TO AWARD:- A) APPEAL FEES DEPOSITED WHILE FILING THE APPEAL. B) ADVOCATE FEES. C) INCIDENTAL CHARGES. 5. THAT THE PETITIONER MAY KINDLY BE PERMITTED TO R AISE ANY ADDITIONAL OR ALTERNATIVE GROUND AT OR BEFORE THE TIME OF HEARING . 6. THE PETITIONER PRAYS FOR JUSTICE AND RELIEF. 2.2 RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORDS P ERUSED. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THERE WAS SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961 AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI UMMAID MAL SINGHVI ON 25-03-2008. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, CERTAIN DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO ASSESSEE SMT. SHARMILA SING HVI (DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF SHRI UMMAID MAL SINGHVI) WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. THE ASSESSING O FFICER RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION U/S 153C OF THE ACT. IN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 153C OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI UMMAID MAL SINGHVI, GOLD JEWELLERY OF 1795.95 GMS BELONGING TO ASSESSE E WAS FOUND, THE VALUE OF WHICH WAS TAKEN AT RS. 19,70,181/- @ RS. 1097 PE R GM. SOURCES REGARDING ACQUISITION OF JEWELLERY WERE NOT PROPERLY EXPLAINE D BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS MARRIED IN THE YEAR 1997. BENEFIT OF 500 GMS WA S GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AS HER SATRIDHAN AND THE REMAINING JEWELLERY OF 1295.95 GM S (1795.95 GMS - 500 GMS) WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNEXPLAI NED JEWELLERY. THE VALUE OF UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY COMES TO RS. 14,21,657/- (129 5.95 GMS X RS. 1097). OUT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED UNEXPLAINED INVESTM ENT IN GOLD JEWELLERY 3 AMOUNTING TO RS. 7,14,183/--. HENCE THE BALANCE OF RS. 7,07,474/- (RS. 14,21,657/- RS. 7,14,183/- ) WAS ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.3 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE CONTENTIONS OF THE A SSESSEE WAS AS UNDER:- I . THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE RESIDENCE A ND BANK LOCKER OF THE ASSESSEE GOLD JEWELLERY WEIGHING 1795.95 GINS WAS FOUND WHICH WAS VALUED AT RS. 19,70,181/- @ RS. 1097 PER GM [ PB PG 123 TO 129]. II THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN G THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF GOLD JEWELLERY AS UNDER: PARTICULAR WEIGHT AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE ON 30-04-1997 FROM FATHER SIDE [PB PG 131, 138] 349.920 GM (30 TOLA) AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE ON 30-04-1997 FROM FATHER IN LAW SIDE [PB PG 161] 41 9.904 GM (36 TOLA) PURCHASES FROM MARKET FROM 16-04-2004 TO 01-05-2007 SHOWN IN BALANCE SHEET [PB PG. 162 TO 164] 227.010 GM BELONG TO HUSBAND AND TWO MINOR CHILDREN 146. 894 GM TO BE CONSIDERED AS EXPLAINED 1143 728 GM SURRENDERED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME 65 2. 222 GM GRAND TOTAL 1 795.950 GM II THAT THE LEARNED A.O. WAS IN HURRY IN PASSING T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THA T REVISED RETURN NOTICE OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 04-12-2009 AND THE AS SESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 18-12-2009 PARTICULARLY WHEN FURTHER A SSESSMENT FOR SIX YEAR WERE ALSO GOING ON SIMULTANEOUSLY AND AS SUCH THE A.O. HAD NO TIME TO CONSIDER THE REGULAR BALANCE SHEET OF THE A SSESSEE [PB PG 162 TO 164], DETAILS OF ORNAMENTS RECORDED IN THE A NNEXURE A-1 PG 27 [PB PG 161] AND THE INVESTMENT SHOWN ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES IN THE BALANCE SHEET ON RECORD [PB PG 162 TO 164]. IV THAT THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD INFORM OF ANNEXUR E A-1 PG 27 FOUND AT THE RESIDENT OF SHRI UMED MAI SINGHVI T HE FATHER IN LAW OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT HE GAVE GOLD ORNAMEN TS WEIGHING 36 TOLA I.E. 419.904 GM. THIS FACT IS ALSO CORROBO RATED WITH THE STATEMENT OF SHRI MANOJ SINGHVI RECORDED ON 25-03-2 008 [PB PG 138]. V. THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ORNAMENTS PURCHASED FRO M MARKET WEIGHING 227.01 GM IS EVIDENCED WITH THE BALANCE SH EET AND PURCHASE 4 BILL [PB PG 165 TO 168]. VI THAT THE CLAIMS OF GOLD ORNAMENT WEIGHING 146 .894 GM BELONGING TO THE HUSBAND AND TWO MINOR CHILDREN IS REASONABLE AS PER CUSTOM. VII THAT THE ASSESSEE HERSELF SURRENDERED AND OF FERED TO TAX 652.222 GM VALUED AT RS.7,14,183/-. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ON RE CORD THE ID. A.O. ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 707474/- OVER AND ABOVE THEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AS SUCH THE ADDITION MADE BY A.O. IN RESPECT OF GOLD ORNAMENTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 7,07,474 A MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. ' 2.4 BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED T HE CREDIT OF 600 GMS JEWELLERY I.E. 500 GMS FOR THE ASSESSEE (MARRIED LADY) AND 10 0 GMS FOR HUSBAND. AFTER GIVING CREDIT OF SURRENDERED JEWELLERY OF 652.222 GMS, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT JEWELLERY WEIGHING 1479.232 GMS (827.010+652.222) WAS EXPLAIN ED. THE UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY WAS WORKED OUT BY THE LD. CIT(A) AT 316.718 GMS (17 95.95 1479.232). AFTER APPLYING THE PREVAILING PURCHASE RATE OF RS. 1097/- PER GM, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AT RS. 3,47,440/- BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 7.4 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AS ALSO THE FINDING OF AO. IT MAY BE NOTE D THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH GOLD JEWELLERY WEIGHING1795.95 GRAMS WAS FOUND WHICH WAS VALUED FOR RS. 1970181/-. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ASSES SED TO WEALTH TAX. THEREFORE THE AO GAVE BENEFIT OF 500 GRAMS TO THE A SSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF HER 'STRI DHAN' AND REMAINING JEWELLERY OF 1295.95 GRAM S VALUED FOR RS.1421657/-WASDETERMINED AS UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT/ INCOME ON ACCO UNT OF GOLD JEWELLERY AMOUNTING TO RS.714183/- THEREFORE BALANCE OF RS. 7 07474/- (1421657- 714183) WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. THE APPELLAN T HAS TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE ACQUISITION THE JEWELLERY BY WAY OF FOLLOWING S OURCES:-- I) JEWLLERY RECEIVED FROM FATHER'S SIDE - 349.920 GRAMS II) JEWELLERY RECEIVED FROM FATHER-IN-LAW SIDE - 419.904 GRAMS III) PURCHASE FROM MARKET FROM 16.4.04 TO 1.5.07 - 227.010 GRAMS IV) JEWELLERY BELONGING TO H USBAND AND TWO MINOR CHILDREN- 146.894 GRAMS V) SURRENDER IN THE RETURN OF INCOME - 652 22 2 GRAMS VI) GRAND TOTAL - 1795.95 GRAM S 5 IN THIS CONNECTION IT MAY BE STATED THAT AS THE APP ELLANT IS NOT ASSESSED TO WEALTH TAX AND SUCH JEWELLERY IS ACCORD INGLY NOT FOUND RECORDED OR VERIFIABLE FROM THE WEALTH TAX RETURN THEREFORE THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IS TO BE CONSIDERED KEEPING IN VIEW THE BOARD'S INSTRU CTION NO. 1916 DATED 11.5.94. AS PER THIS INSTRUCTION CREDIT CAN BE GIVE N TO THE EXTENT OF 500 GRAMS PER MARRIED LADY, 250 GRAMS PER UNMARRIED LAD Y AND 100 GRAMS PER MALE MARRIED MEMBER. FURTHER THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER WHEN THE JEWELLERY HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS AS PER THE LIMIT LA ID DOWN UNDER THE CBDT CIRCULAR WILL BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY O R NOT CAME BEFORE THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. R ATANLAL VAYAPARI LAI JAIN (2011) 339 ITR 351 AND HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER: 'THOUGH IT IS TRUE THAT THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 1916 DATED 11.5.94 LAYS DOWN GUIDELINES FOR SEIZURE OF JEWELLE RY AND ORNAMENTS IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE SAME TAKES INTO ACCOUN T THE QUANTITY OF JEWELLERY WHICH WOULD GENERALLY BE HELD BY FAMILY M EMBERS OF AN ASSESSEE BELONGING TO AN ORDINARY HINDU HOUSEHOLD. THE APPROACH ADOPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FOLLOWING THE SAID CIRCU LAR AND GIVING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE, EVEN FOR EXPLAINING THE SO URCE IN RESPECT OF THE JEWELLERY BEING HELD BY THE FAMILY IS IN CONSON ANCE WITH THE GENERAL PRACTICE IN HINDU FAMILIES WHEREBY JEWELLER Y IS GIFTED BY THE RELATIVES AND FRIENDS AT THE TIME OF SOCIAL FUNCTIO NS, VIZ., MARRIAGES, BIRTHDAYS, MARRIAGE ANNIVERSARY AND OTHE R FESTIVALS. THESE GIFTS ARE CUSTOMARY AND CUSTOMS PREVAILING IN A ' SOCIETY CANNOT BE IGNORED. THUS ALTHOUGH THE CIRCULAR HAD B EEN ISSUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF NON-SEIZURE OF JEWELLERY DURING THE COUR SE OF SEARCH, THE BASIS FOR THE SAME RECOGNIZE CUSTOMS PREVAILING IN HINDU SOCIETY. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, UNLESS THE REVENUE SHOWS ANYTHIN G TO THE CONTRARY, IT CAN SAFELY BE PRESUMED THAT THE SOURCE TO THE EXTENT OF THE OF JEWELLERY STATED IN THE CIRCULAR STANDS EXPL AINED. THUS, THE APPROACH ADOPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN CONSIDERING THE EXTENT OF JEWELLERY SPECIFIED UNDER THE SAID CIRCULAR TO B E A REASONABLE QUANTITY, CANNOT BE FAULTED WITH. IN THE CIRCUMSTAN CES, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO STATE THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS COMMITTED A NY LEGAL ERROR SO AS TO GIVE RISE TO A QUESTION OF LAW. ' IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS LAI D DOWN THAT THOUGH THE CIRCULAR HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF NON-SEIZURE OF JEWELLERY DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH HOWEVER THE B ASIS FOR THE SAME RECOGNIZE CUSTOMS PREVAILING IN HINDU SOCIETY AND I N THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNLESS THE REVENUE SHOWS ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY I T CAN SAFELY BE PRESUMED THAT SOURCE TO THE EXTENT OF THE JEWELLERY STATED IN THE CIRCULAR STANDS EXPLAINED. THE HON'BLE COURT HAS ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT IF THE JEWELLERY SO FOUND IS WITHIN THE LIMIT AS PER CBDTS CIRCULAR, IT CANNOT SAID 6 TO BE OF UNEXPLAINED NATURE. FURTHER RELIANCE IS AL SO MADE ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: I) SMT. PATI DEVI VS. 1TO (2000) 159 CTR 28 IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT THE FAMILY CONSIST OF THE APPELLANT I.E. MARRIED LADY, HER HUSBAND AND TWO MINOR CHILDREN TH EREFORE CREDIT OF 600 GRAMS JEWELLERY CAN BE GIVEN I.E. 500 GRAMS FOR MAR RIED LADY AND 100 GRAMS FOR HUSBAND. APART FROM SUCH JEWELLERY THE APPELLAN T HAS PURCHASED JEWELLERY WEIGHING 227.010 GRAMS BETWEEN THE PERIOD 16.4.2004 TO 1.5.2007. SUCH PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY/ INVESTMENT IS ALSO SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF M/S HARSHITA FINANCE WHICH IS PROP RIETORSHIP CONCERN OF SMT. SHARMILA SINGHVI IN A.Y. 2005-06 AS WELL AS IN A.Y. 2007-08. THE RETURN FOR SUCH A.Y. WERE ALSO FILED BEFORE THE DAT E OF SEARCH AND THEREFORE THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ACQUIS ITION OF JEWELLERY WEIGHING 227.010 CANNOT BE DOUBTED. IN THIS MANNER THE TOTAL EXPLAINED JEWELLERY WHICH CAN BE CONSIDERED AS GENUINE ACQUIS ITION OF THE APPELLANT IS ARRIVED AT 827.010 GRAMS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREA DY SURRENDERED 652.222 GRAMS OF JEWELLERY IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THER EFORE EXPLAINED JEWELLERY IS ARRIVED AT 827.010+652.222= 1479.232 G RAMS. THE UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY IS ACCORDINGLY DETERMINED AT 316.718 GRAMS (1795.95-1479.232). AT THE PREVAILING PURCHASE RATE OF RS. 1097 PER GRAM, THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IS ARRIVED AT RS. 347440/-. THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 347440/- IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIR MED. THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS. 360034/-(707474-347440). AGAINST THIS ADDITION, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER A PPEAL BEFORE US. 2.5 SHRI RAJINDER JAIN AND SHRI GAUTAM BAIDH APPEAR ED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN GIVING CREDIT FOR THE ORNAMENTS BELONGING TO MINOR CHILDREN OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER BOARD CIRCULAR NO. 1916 DATED 11- 05-1994. IT WAS THEREFORE, CONTENDED THAT DUE CREDI T FOR JEWELLERY BELONGING TO MINOR CHILDREN SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN ADDITION TO WHAT HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND. 2.6 ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI R.H.GOHEL, LD. D.R. AP PEARING ON BEHALF REVENUE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN T HE JEWELLERY RECEIVED FROM FATHER AND FATHER-IN-LAW SIDES. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING O FFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE 7 WAS UNABLE TO MATCH THE JEWELLERY WITH JEWELLERY SO FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AS BELONGING TO THE MINOR CHILDREN. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF R S. 3,47,440/-. 2.7 RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND RECO RDS PERUSED. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE STATEMENTS RECORDED DURING THE COURSE O F SEARCH. WE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE JEWELLERY AS ACQUIRED FROM FATHER AND FATHER-IN-LAW SIDES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO EXPLAINED THE JEWELLERY ACQUIRED BY HER AND WHICH HAS BEEN DULY RECODED AND SHOWN IN THE REGULAR RETURNS FILED MUCH BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH. THUS THE ACQUISITION OF JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF 227.010 WAS DULY EXPLAINED. HOWEVER, WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DULY CONSIDE RED THE DECISION OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RATANAL VYAPATI LA L JAIN, 339 ITR 351 BUT HAS NOT GIVEN EFFECT TO THE SAID JUDGEMENT IN TRUE SPIRIT, IN SO FAR AS CREDIT OF JEWELLERY BELONGING TO ASSESSEE I.E. 500 GMS AND HER HUSBAND I.E. 100 GMS WAS ONLY GIVEN BY HIM, HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN CREDIT FOR JE WELLERY BELONGING TO MINOR CHILDREN OF ASSESSEE. THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS CAT EGORICALLY OBSERVED THAT THOUGH IT IS TRUE THAT CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 1916 DATED 11-05-94 LAY S DOWN GUIDELINES FOR SEIZURE OF JEWELLERY AND ORNAMENTS IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, TH E SAME TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE QUANTITY OF JEWELLERY WHICH WOULD GENERALLY BE HELD BY FAMILY MEMBERS OF AN ASSESSEE BELONGING TO AN ORDINARY HINDU HOUSEHOLD. IN VIEW O F THE DECISION OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT VIS A VIS CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 1916 DATED 1 1-05-1994, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW FURTHER DEDUCTION OF 100 GMS IN RESPECT OF MINOR MALE CHILDREN AND 250 GMS IN CASE OF MINOR FEMALE CHILDR EN OF ASSESSEE, WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO GIVE. THUS THE ASSESSEE DESIRE S FURTHER CREDITS OF 350 GMS JEWELLERY AS BELONGING TO HER MINOR CHILDREN. HOWE VER, THE ADDITIONS RETAINED BY LD. CIT(A) IS ONLY 316.718 GMS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER I S DIRECTED TO DELETE THE SAME. 8 3.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED, IN TERMS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 13-0 6-2013.) SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (R.C. SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 13 TH JUNE, 2013 MISHRA COPY TO:- 1.THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE LD. CIT 4. THE LD. CIT(A) 5. THE DR 6. THE GUARD FILE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, JODHPUR