S.Soundararajan, Vellore V. Addl. CIT, Madurai

ITA 314/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9072 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A B KOLI
• Assessee Lawyers: T VASUDEVAN
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 153A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !'# ! , % !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.314/MDS/2015 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SHRI S. SOUNDARARAJAN, 98/1, CHITOOR HIGH ROAD, KATPADI VELLORE 7. PAN : AARPS 2411 E V. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE III, MADURAI. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.315/MDS/2015 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SHRI S. SOUNDARARAJAN (HUF), 98/1, CHITOOR HIGH ROAD, KATPADI VELLORE 7. PAN : AAOHS 3557 E V. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE III, MADURAI. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.316/MDS/2015 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SMT. M. NANDHINI, W/O SH. S. MANIVANNAN, 98/1, CHITOOR HIGH ROAD, KATPADI VELLORE 7. PAN : AACPN 5238 P V. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE III, MADURAI. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) 2 I.T.A. NOS.314 TO 317/MDS/15 ./ ITA NO.317/MDS/2015 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SMT. S. CHANDRALEKHA, W/O SHRI S. SOUNDARARAJAN, 98/1, CHITOOR HIGH ROAD, KATPADI VELLORE 7. PAN : AFNPC 9444 E V. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE III, MADURAI. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) +, / 0 / APPELLANTS BY : SHRI T. VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE -.+, / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SH. A.B. KOLI, JCIT 1 / 2% / DATE OF HEARING : 12.04.2016 3') / 2% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.06.2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE INDEPENDENT ASSESSEES, WHO ARE MEMBERS OF TH E HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY, FILED THE APPEALS AGAINST RESPECT IVE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, MADURAI, DA TED 12.11.2014. SINCE COMMON ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDER ATION IN ALL THESE APPEALS, WE HEARD THESE APPEALS TOGETHER AND DISPOSING OF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. SHRI T. VASUDEVAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE, SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH IN THE PREMISES O F THE ASSESSEES ON 04.07.2006. SHRI S. SOUNDARARAJAN, ONE OF THE A SSESSEES, IS A 3 I.T.A. NOS.314 TO 317/MDS/15 PARTNER IN SUSEE MOTORS, SUSEE MOTOR FINANCE AND SU SEE TRADERS. THE SAID SHRI S. SOUNDARARAJAN IS ALSO DIRECTOR IN SUSEE CARS PVT. LTD. AND SUSEE TRUCKS PVT. LTD. BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH, ALL THE ASSESSEES FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE S ALSO FILED RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 153A AND 153C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF GOLD JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, 4035.07 GM S OF GOLD JEWELLERY WAS FOUND, OUT OF WHICH 2622.71 GMS OF GO LD JEWELLERY WAS SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSES SEES WERE IN THE BUSINESS FOR MORE THAN FIVE DECADES AND THEY HA VE GOOD FINANCIAL AND SOCIAL STATUS IN THE LOCALITY. ALL T HE ASSESSEES EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE GOL D JEWELLERY BELONGED TO ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY. THE ASS ESSEES ALSO EXPLAINED THAT SMT. S. CHANDRALEKHA AND SMT. NANDHI NI HAVE RECEIVED GOLD JEWELLERY AT THE TIME OF THEIR MARRIA GE AS STRIDHAN FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE PARENTS. THE CHILDREN OF THE ASSESSEES ALSO RECEIVED GIFTS FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE GRANDPARENTS I N THE FORM OF GOLD, DIAMOND, SILVER ARTICLES AND ORNAMENTS. 4 I.T.A. NOS.314 TO 317/MDS/15 3. IN THE CASE OF SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN (HUF), THE ASS ESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF ` 5,64,000/- BEING THE VALUE OF 480 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AT THE RATE OF ` 1175/- PER GRAM. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN (HUF) HAS ALSO INHERITE D JEWELLERY FROM HIS PARENTS. THE ASSESSEE-SOUNDARARAJAN INHERITED GOLD JEWELLERY FROM HIS MOTHER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER GIVI NG A DISCOUNT OF 15%, MADE THE ADDITION OF ` 4,79,400/-. THE CIT(APPEALS) ALLOWED 100 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITIO N OF ` 3,61,900/-. 4. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THERE WAS A FAMILY PARTITION IN THE YEAR 1985 AMONG THE CHILDREN OF SHRI M.V.M. SUB RAMANIA NADAR & SONS. THE ASSESSEE-HUF WAS ALLOTTED 60 SOVERIGNS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND 3 KGS OF SILVER ARTICLES. THE 60 SOV ERIGNS ALLOTTED IN THE FAMILY PARTITION WAS EQUAL TO 480 GMS OF JEWELL ERY. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THIS WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE BUSINESS FOR MORE THAN FIVE DECADES, THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS GIVEN IN THE FAMILY PARTITION IN 1985 CANNOT BE DOUBTED. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, SH. A.B. KOLI, THE LD. DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH 5 I.T.A. NOS.314 TO 317/MDS/15 OPERATION, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND GOLD JEWEL LERY OF 4035.07 GMS, OUT OF WHICH, 2622.71 GMS WERE SEIZED. THE AS SESSEES CLAIM 60 SOVERIGNS EQUIVALENT TO 480 GOLD JEWELLERY BELON GED TO SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN (HUF). SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN HAD NOT FI LED ANY WEALTH- TAX RETURN. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE HUF POSSESSED ANY GOLD JEWELLERY. IN THE RETURN FILED BEFORE THE SEARCH, THERE WAS NO REFERENCE ABOUT POSSESSION OF 60 SOVER IGNS OF GOLD JEWELLERY BY THE HUF, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE-HUF, WHICH WAS PARTLY CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(APPEALS). REFERRING TO THE OR DER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A PPEALS) HAS GRANTED RELIEF TO THE EXTENT OF 100 GMS OF JEWELLER Y, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT HAVE ANY GRIEVANCE AT ALL. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, IT APPEARS THAT SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN (HUF) WAS IN THE BUSINESS FOR MORE THAN FIVE DECADE S. THE OTHER ASSESSEES ARE MEMBERS OF THE HUF. BEING A BUSINESS MAN FOR CONSECUTIVELY FIVE DECADES, IT CANNOT BE DENIED THA T HE ACQUIRED JEWELLERY IN ROUTINE COURSE. THE DISPUTE IS WITH R EGARD TO 60 6 I.T.A. NOS.314 TO 317/MDS/15 SOVERIGNS OF JEWELLERY IN THE CASE OF SHRI SOUNDARA RAJAN (HUF). THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IT WAS OBTAINED IN THE FAM ILY PARTITION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THIS CLAIM ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE RETURN FILED BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH. THE FACT REMAINS THAT IT IS A CUSTOMARY PRACTICE TO PUR CHASE JEWELLERY WHENEVER THERE IS A MARRIAGE IN THE FAMILY AND SOME CEREMONIAL OCCASIONS. IT IS ALSO A CUSTOMARY PRACTICE TO GIVE JEWELLERY AND RECEIVE JEWELLERY AS A GIFT ON CEREMONIAL OCCASIONS LIKE BIRTHDAY, WEDDING ANNIVERSARY, ETC. THE ASSESSEE, BEING IN B USINESS, IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THAT HE HAS RECEIVED GIFTS IN TH E FORM OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND ALSO GIFTED JEWELLERY ON CEREMONIAL O CCASIONS. MERELY BECAUSE THE GOLD JEWELLERY WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN FILED BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH, THE RECEIPT OF GOLD ON F AMILY PARTITION CANNOT BE TOTALLY REJECTED. TAKING INTO CONSIDERAT ION THE STATUS OF THE FAMILY AND FINANCIAL BACKGROUND AND THE BUSINES S ACTIVITY CARRIED ON FOR MORE THAN FIVE DECADES AND THE CUSTOMARY PRA CTICE PREVAILING IN THIS PART OF COUNTRY, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CO NSIDERED OPINION THAT SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN (HUF) MIGHT HAVE RECEIVED 60 SOV ERIGNS OF GOLD JEWELLERY ON FAMILY PARTITION AS CLAIMED. THEREFOR E, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) OUG HT TO HAVE 7 I.T.A. NOS.314 TO 317/MDS/15 DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE SAME ARE SET ASIDE AND TH E ENTIRE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS GOLD JEWELLER Y IS DELETED. 7. NOW COMING TO THE APPEAL OF SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN ( INDIVIDUAL), SHRI T. VASUDEVAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT 149.38 SOVERIGNS E QUIVALENT TO 1195.07 GMS WAS EXCESS GOLD JEWELLERY IN THE HANDS OF SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN (INDIVIDUAL). THE ASSESSING OFFICER VALUED 1195.07 GMS AT THE RATE OF ` 1175/- PER GRAM AND AFTER REDUCING 15%, MADE AN ADDITION OF ` 11,93,546/-. THE CIT(APPEALS), AFTER ALLOWING 100 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION TO TH E EXTENT OF 1095.07 GMS AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTEN T OF ` 10,76,046/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASS ESSEE BEING A BUSINESSMAN ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS FOR MORE THAN F IVE DECADES, EARNED CONSIDERABLE INCOME FOR THE PAST SEVERAL YEA RS. THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS IN FACT ACCEPTED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEES FATHER SHRI M.V.M. SUBRAMA NIA NADAR IS A REPUTED BUSINESSMAN IN THE LOCALITY AND HAS ACCUMUL ATED GOLD JEWELLERY AND OTHER ASSETS OVER THE PERIOD OF TIME. THE ASSESSEE 8 I.T.A. NOS.314 TO 317/MDS/15 WAS IN POSSESSION OF GOLD JEWELLERY EVEN BEFORE 198 5. MERELY BECAUSE THE WEALTH-TAX RETURN WAS NOT FILED, ACCORD ING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION. THE LD.COUN SEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES WIFE ALSO RECEIVED GO LD JEWELLERY DURING HER MARRIAGE FROM HER PARENTS. THEREFORE, T HE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE SUSTAINABLE IN L AW. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE DEL ETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. ON THE CONTRARY, SH. A.B. KOLI, THE LD. DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN ( INDIVIDUAL) OR HIS FAMILY HAVE NOT FILED ANY WEALTH-TAX RETURN. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION TOWARDS THE VALUE OF 1195.07 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND ALSO 3955.17 GMS OF SILVER ARTICLES. EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE BUSINESS FOR SEVERAL YEARS, NO WEALTH-TAX RETURN WAS FILED BY SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN (INDIVIDUAL) OR ANY OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL, AC CORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS TO BE SUSTAINED. HOWEVER, THE CIT(APPEALS) WAS VERY FAIR ENOUGH IN GRANTING AN ALLOWANCE OF 100 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT HAVE ANY GRIEVANCE AT ALL. 9 I.T.A. NOS.314 TO 317/MDS/15 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FINANCIAL BACKGROUND, THE SOCIAL STATUS AND THE BUSINESS ACTI VITY OF THE ASSESSEE FOR MORE THAN FIVE DECADES ARE NOT IN DISP UTE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE GOLD JEWELLERY FOUND WAS F ROM THE ACCUMULATED INCOME EARNED FOR THE LAST FIVE DECADES . IN A FAMILY OF BUSINESSMAN, RECEIPT OF GIFT IN THE FORM OF GOLD JE WELLERY AND PURCHASE OF GOLD JEWELLERY ON CEREMONIAL OCCASIONS CANNOT BE RULED OUT. MOREOVER, IT IS CUSTOMARY PRACTICE TO GIFT GO LD JEWELLERY AS SRIDHAN AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE OF GIRL CHILDREN. THE CIT(APPEALS), AFTER CONSIDERING THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.1916, FOUND THAT 100 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY WAS EXPLAINED. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GO NE THROUGH THE CIRCULAR OF THE CBDT. THE CBDT INSTRUCTED ITS OFFI CERS NOT TO SEIZE GOLD JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OP ERATION, IN THE CASE OF MARRIED LADY TO THE EXTENT OF 500 GMS, IN T HE CASE OF UNMARRIED LADY, THE CBDT INSTRUCTED NOT TO SEIZE TH E GOLD JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF 250 GMS AND IN THE CASE OF MEN, TH E CBDT INSTRUCTED ITS OFFICERS NOT TO SEIZE GOLD JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF 100 GMS. THIS CIRCULAR DOES NOT PROHIBIT POSSESSION OF ANY JEWELLERY MORE THAN 100 GMS. THE CBDT CANNOT ISSUE CIRCULAR IN THE GUISE OF 10 I.T.A. NOS.314 TO 317/MDS/15 EXERCISING ITS POWER UNDER SECTION 119 OF THE ACT P ROHIBITING THE POSSESSION OF GOLD JEWELLERY BY THE INDIVIDUALS IF THE INDIVIDUALS WERE CAPABLE OF EARNING MORE MONEY. THEY CAN VERY WELL INVEST MONEY EITHER IN GOLD OR IN ANY OTHER FORM OF ASSET IN THIS COUNTRY. THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CON FIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE CB DT CIRCULAR. AS OBSERVED, THE CBDT CIRCULAR IS ONLY TO INSTRUCT ITS OFFICERS NOT TO SEIZE 100 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY IN THE CASE OF MEN. IF ANY MAN IS HOLDING MORE THAN 100 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND IF HE IS ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE FOR ACQUISITION OF GOLD JEWELLER Y, THEN THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT SEIZE THE GOLD JEWELLERY MERELY B ECAUSE IT HAS EXCEEDED 100 GMS. 10. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THA T THE ASSESSEE SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN (INDIVIDUAL) AND OTHER FAMILY ME MBERS ARE IN BUSINESS FOR MORE THAN FIVE DECADES. THEY HAVE DAU GHTERS-IN-LAW IN THEIR FAMILY AND THEY HAVE RECEIVED GOLD JEWELLE RY AND SILVER ARTICLES AS SRIDHAN PROPERTY. THEREFORE, BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SOCIAL STATUS, CUSTOMARY PRACTICE, BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR MORE THAN FIVE DECADES, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CON SIDERED OPINION THAT ADDITION OF THE VALUE OF 1195.07 GMS OF GOLD J EWELLERY IS NOT 11 I.T.A. NOS.314 TO 317/MDS/15 JUSTIFIED. WHEN A FAMILY IS SUCCESSFUL IN BUSINESS FOR MORE THAN FIVE DECADES AND EARNING INCOME EVERY YEAR IN A ROUTINE MANNER, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE SURP LUS INCOME AVAILABLE COULD HAVE BEEN INVESTED IN GOLD. THEREF ORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(APPEALS), IS NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE A UTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ADDITION IS DELETED. 11. NOW COMING TO THE APPEAL OF SMT. M. NANDHINI, T HE DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN AND WIFE OF S HRI S. MANIVANNAN, SHRI T. VASUDEVAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT SHRI S. MANIVANNAN IS THE SON OF SHR I SOUNDARARAJAN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF 1560 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY IN THE HANDS OF SMT. NANDHINI. THE CIT(A PPEALS), BY FOLLOWING THE CIRCULAR OF CBDT, ALLOWED 500 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND SUSTAINED ADDITION OF 1060 GMS. ACCORDING TO T HE LD. COUNSEL, 880 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY WAS RECEIVED BY SMT. NAND HINI FROM HER PARENTS AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE IN 1990, 480 GMS OF JEWELLERY WAS RECEIVED BY HER FROM HER MOTHER AT THE TIME OF HER DAUGHTERS BIRTH AND 200 GMS OF JEWELLERY WAS RECEIVED FROM HER MOTH ER AT THE TIME OF HER SONS BIRTH. MERELY BECAUSE THE RETURN FILE D BY SMT. NANDHINI 12 I.T.A. NOS.314 TO 317/MDS/15 BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH DID NOT REFLECT THE GOLD JEWELLERY, THE SAME CANNOT BE A REASON FOR DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES FA THER APART FROM 880 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY, HAS ALSO GIFTED 9.5 KGS OF SILVER TO SMT. NANDHINI AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE. THEREFORE, THE A DDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 12. ON THE CONTRARY, SH. A.B. KOLI, THE LD. DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT IN THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SMT. NANDHINI BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH, THERE WAS NO REFERENCE ABOUT THE GOLD JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. SMT. NANDHINI HAS NOT FILED ANY WEALTH- TAX RETURN. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY MADE T HE ADDITION. THE CIT(APPEALS) WAS VERY FAIR ENOUGH IN GRANTING RELIE F TO THE EXTENT OF 500 GMS OF JEWELLERY BASED UPON THE CBDT CIRCULAR. 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE QUANTITY OF JEWELLERY AND SILVER ARTICLES WOULD BE DEPENDING UP ON THE FAMILY STATUS AND FINANCIAL BACKGROUND. THE ASSESSEE SMT. NANDHINI WAS MARRIED TO A MAN WHOSE FAMILY WAS IN BUSINESS FOR M ORE THAN FIVE DECADES. THE STATUS OF SMT. NANDHINIS FATHER IS A LSO EQUALLY WELL 13 I.T.A. NOS.314 TO 317/MDS/15 PLACED AND THEY WOULD HAVE DEFINITELY GENERATED 880 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND 9.5 KGS OF SILVER ARTICLES AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CUSTOMARY PRACTICE PREVAILING IN THIS PART OF COUNTRY, NAMELY , GIVING OF GOLD AND SILVER ARTICLES AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE OF GIRL CHI LDREN CANNOT BE TOTALLY IGNORED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WHILE VALUING THE GOLD JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. OF CO URSE, THE CBDT INSTRUCTED ITS OFFICERS NOT TO SEIZE THE GOLD JEWEL LERY TO THE EXTENT OF 500 GMS IN THE CASE OF MARRIED LADY DURING THE COUR SE OF SEARCH OPERATION. THIS CIRCULAR DOES NOT SAY THAT NO MARR IED LADY SHOULD POSSESS MORE THAN 500 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY. THIS IS ONLY ENABLING PROVISION FOR THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES NOT TO SEI ZE GOLD JEWELLERY UPTO 500 GMS. IF THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE BACKGROUND IN WHICH THE GOLD JEWELLERY WAS ACQUIRED, THEN THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES CANNOT SEIZE THE GOLD JEWELLERY FOUND D URING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS O F THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CBDT INSTRU CTING ITS OFFICERS NOT TO SEIZE GOLD JEWELLERY UPTO 500 GMS IN THE CAS E OF MARRIED LADY, CANNOT BE CONSTRUED THAT AN ADDITION HAS TO BE MADE WHEN THE MARRIED LADY POSSESSES GOLD JEWELLERY MORE THAN 500 GMS. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED 880 GMS OF GO LD JEWELLERY 14 I.T.A. NOS.314 TO 317/MDS/15 FROM HER PARENTS AT THE TIME OF HER MARRIAGE AND 48 0 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY WAS RECEIVED AS GIFT FROM HER MOTHER DURI NG THE BIRTH OF HER DAUGHTER MADHUMITA AND ANOTHER 200 GMS OF GOLD WAS RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF BIRTH OF HER SON RUSHI. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IT IS CUSTOMARY PRACTICE TO GIFT GOLD JEWELLERY AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE AND BIRTH OF CHILDREN BY THE RESPECTIVE PARENTS. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE PARENTS OF SMT. NA NDHINI DID NOT HAVE ANY CREDITWORTHINESS TO GIFT THIS KIND OF JEWE LLERY TO HER. WHEN THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF PARENTS ARE NOT IN DOUBT, T HIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES CANNOT MAKE ANY ADDITION MERELY BECAUSE THE POSSESSION OF GOLD JEWELLERY WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE INCOME-TAX RETURN AND WEALTH-T AX RETURN. 14. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS UNABLE T O UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND HENCE THE SAME ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS D ELETED. 15. NOW COMING TO THE ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF SMT. CHANDRALEKHA, SHRI T. VASUDEVAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SMT. CHANDRALEKHA RECEI VED 100 SOVEREIGNS OF GOLD JEWELLERY WHICH IS EQUIVALENT TO 800 GMS FROM HER FATHER LATE S.S.A.S. SUBRAMANIAN AND ALSO RECEIVED 9 KGS OF SILVER 15 I.T.A. NOS.314 TO 317/MDS/15 ARTICLES. TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM, ACCORDING TO THE L D. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT FROM HER BROTHER SHRI S . SUBBIAH, WHO IS AN ADVOCATE. HE HAS STATED IN THE AFFIDAVIT THAT H IS FATHER SHRI S.S.A.S. SUBRAMANIAN NADAR GAVE 100 SOVEREIGNS OF G OLD JEWELLERY ON THE OCCASION OF THE MARRIAGE OF THE ASSESSEE SMT . CHANDRALEKHA. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT SHE RECEIVED 9 KGS OF SILVER ARTICLES AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE. 16. ON THE CONTRARY, SH. A.B. KOLI, THE LD. DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE SO-CALLED POSSES SION OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND SILVER ARTICLES WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE INCOME-TAX AND WEALTH-TAX RETURNS. THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) HA S RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. 17. AS DISCUSSED IN THE CASE OF OTHER ASSESSEES IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER, IT IS CUSTOMARY PRACTICE TO GIV E GOLD JEWELLERY AND SILVER ARTICLES AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE OF GIRL CHI LD BY THE RESPECTIVE PARENTS. THIS CUSTOMARY PRACTICE PREVAILING IN THI S PART OF COUNTRY CANNOT BE TOTALLY IGNORED WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSM ENT. WHEN THE GIRLS PARENTS PURCHASED THE GOLD JEWELLERY AND GIF TED THE SAME TO THEIR DAUGHTERS, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE 16 I.T.A. NOS.314 TO 317/MDS/15 CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE . GIFTING 100 SOVEREIGNS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AT THE TIME OF MARRIAG E IS A COMMON PRACTICE IN THIS PART OF THE COUNTRY IN ALL THE COM MUNITIES. BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FAMILY STATUS AND FINANCIAL BACKGROUND OF THE ASSESSEE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINIO N THAT THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DOUBTED BY THE REVEN UE AUTHORITIES AT ALL. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NO T FIND ANY REASON TO MAKE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPE CT OF 800 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND 9 KGS OF SILVER ARTICLES. THERE FORE, THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ADDITIO N IS DELETED. 16. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS STAND ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 17 TH JUNE, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !'# ! ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 17 TH JUNE, 2016. KRI. / -267 87)2 /COPY TO: 1. +, /APPELLANTS 2. -.+, /RESPONDENT 3. 1 92 () /CIT(A)-1, MADURAI 4. 1 92 /CIT, CENTRAL-II, CHENNAI 5. 7: -2 /DR 6. ;( < /GF.