MOHAMMED AKHLAQ, Jaipur V. DCIT, Jaipur

ITA 436/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3572 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (International Taxation) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 26-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VARINDAR MEHTA
• Assessee Lawyers: S R SHARMA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Search and seizure; Question of law
• Section: 250; 132

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S A JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA. NO. 436/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SHRI MOHAMMED AKHLAQ, JAIPUR CUKE VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AFIPM5122Q VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPON DENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA. NO. 434/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SMT. SHAHEEN AKHLAQ, JAIPUR CUKE VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ADOPA0243N VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLAN T IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. R. SHARMA & SHRI RAJNIKANT BHATRA (C.A) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI VARINDAR MEHTA (CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 14/05/2019 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24/05/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THESE ARE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSE SSEES AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-4, JAIPUR DATED 17.03.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT ITA NO. 436 & 434/JP/2017 MOHAMMED AKHLAQ, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, JAIPUR 2 YEAR 2012-13. SINCE THE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED, BOTH THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. IN ITA NO. 436/JP/2017, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN T HE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) IS WRONG, UNJUST AND HAS ERRED IN LAW IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 10,26,240/- MADE TO THE INCOME OF T HE APPELLANT BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE IN ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY VALUING RS. 20, 52,479/- (WEIGHING 779.92 GAMS) AND SILVER ARTICLES VALUING RS. 1,00,000/- CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM FRIENDS AND RELATIVES ON MARRIAGE AND OTHER OCCASION. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON THE ME MBERS OF SUNNY GROUP ON 01.12.2011 OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE MEMBERS. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, CERTAIN JE WELLERY VALUED AT RS. 51,08,301/- WAS FOUND FROM THE RESIDENCE AND BANK L OCKER OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE, HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO SEIZUR E BY THE DEPARTMENT/SURRENDER BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE SEA RCH PROCEEDINGS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSEE WAS ASKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF I NVESTMENT IN SUCH JEWELLERY. 4. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAI D JEWELLERY BELONGS TO HIM AND HIS FAMILY WHICH HAS BEEN RECEIV ED FROM BOTH SIDES ITA NO. 436 & 434/JP/2017 MOHAMMED AKHLAQ, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, JAIPUR 3 OF RELATIVES AND FRIENDS AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE AN D THEREAFTER ON VARIOUS OTHER FESTIVALS AND AUSPICIOUS OCCASIONS. I T IS CUSTOMARY IN INDIAN SOCIETY THAT PARENTS, FRIENDS & RELATIVES PR ESENT GOLD ORNAMENTS AND SILVER ITEMS ETC TO THEIR DAUGHTER AND SON IN L AW AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE AND OTHER SOCIAL FUNCTIONS/FESTIVITIES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID FACT CAN BE VERIFIED FROM THE ITEMS OF JEWELLE RY DULY INVENTORISED BY THE SEARCH TEAM THAT THE JEWELLERY ITEMS WERE ACQUI RED LONG BACK AND AT THAT TIME, THE VALUE WAS VERY LOW. DUE TO SHARP INCREASE IN THE PRICE OF THE GOLD/SILVER IN THE PRECEDING YEARS AND IN TH E YEAR OF SEARCH, THE VALUE OF THE SAID ITEMS HAS INCREASED AND HAS BEEN DETERMINED AT RS. 51,08,301/-. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE FAMILY O F ASSESSEE AND HIS IN- LAWS ARE FAMILIES OF REPUTE AND MEANS AND HIS IN-LA WS WERE OLD JAGIRDARS. THEREFORE, LOOKING AT THE STATUS OF THE FAMILY, CUSTOMS OF THE SOCIETY AND OTHER FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE TOTAL WEIGHT OF GOLD AND SILVER SHOULD BE FOUND REASONABLE AND S OURCE OF ACQUISITION AS EXPLAINED ABOVE DESERVES TO BE ACCEPTED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE STATEMENT OF SMT. SHAHEEN AKHLAQ, W IFE OF SHRI MOHD. AKHLAQ, RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, HER M ARRIED DAUGHTER GAZALA HAS ALSO LEFT SOME JEWELLERY WITH HER FOR SA FE KEEPING WHILE GOING OUT-OF-STATION FOR SAFETY PURPOSES. IT WAS AL SO SUBMITTED THAT THE POSSESSION OF THE SAID JEWELLERY IS COVERED BY THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE CBDT FOR THE JEWELLERY AND GOLD ORNAMENTS OF A FAMILY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND THE SAME THUS SHOULD BE AC CEPTED AND NO ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT. 5. THE REPLY SO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER , NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS ARE FILLING THEIR RES PECTIVE WEALTH TAX ITA NO. 436 & 434/JP/2017 MOHAMMED AKHLAQ, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, JAIPUR 4 RETURNS. FURTHER, THERE ARE NOT DRAWING THEIR PERS ONAL BALANCE SHEET OR STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS AND ENTIRE JEWELLERY WAS FOUND FROM THE BEDROOM OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE, AND JOINTLY O WNED BY THEM. THE AO AT THE SAME TIME ACCEPTED THAT SOME CUSTOMARY PO SSESSION ON ACCOUNT OF MARRIAGE GIFTS AND GIFTS ON OTHER OCCASI ONS TO THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS CANNOT BE DENIED. THE FAMILY OF THE ASSESSEE CONSISTS OF FIVE ADULT MEMBERS CONSISTING OF ONE MA RRIED LADY, TWO UNMARRIED FEMALE MEMBERS AND TWO MALE MEMBERS. AS P ER THE CBDT GUIDELINES, THE MAXIMUM WEIGHT ON ACCOUNT OF CUSTOM ARY POSSESSION WORKS OUT TO 1200 GMS AS AGAINST GOLD JEWELLERY 197 9.92 GMS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND THE SAME WAS CONSID ERED AS EXPLAINED AND THE BALANCE GOLD JEWELLERY WAS BROUGHT TO TAX E QUALLY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE. REGARDING THE ASSESSE ES CONTENTIONS THAT SOME OF THE JEWELLERY FOUND DURING SEARCH BELONGS T O ASSESSEES MARRIED DAUGHTER, THE AO STATED THAT THE SAME CANNO T BE ACCEPTED SINCE NO PROPER EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD WAS FURNISH ED NOR WAS ANY SUCH EVIDENCE FOUND OR SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARC H. REGARDING SILVER ARTICLES (3229 GMS) VALUED AT RS. 1,52,222/- FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS WERE ACCEPTED TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 52,222/- AND THE BALANCE OF RS. 1,00,000/- REPRESEN TED BY THE SILVER ARTICLES IS HELD TO BE ACQUIRED OUT OF THE UNDISCLO SED INCOME AND THE SAME WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO THE TAX. THEREFORE, OUT OF THE TOTAL GOLD JEWELLERY AND SILVER ARTICLES FOUND DURING SEARCH A ND VALUED AT RS. 51,08,301/-, JEWELLERY AND SILVER ITEMS WORTH RS. 3 0,55,822/- WERE CONSIDERED AS EXPLAINED AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF R S. 20,52,479/- WAS BROUGHT TO TAX EQUALLY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE U/S 69A OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 436 & 434/JP/2017 MOHAMMED AKHLAQ, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, JAIPUR 5 6. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTE R IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS SINCE CONFIRME D THE ADDITION AND THE RELEVANT FINDINGS ARE CONTAINED AT PARA 3.1.3 O F HIS ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 3.1.3 I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSION S AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH ASSESSMENT ORDER. I HAVE ALS O TAKEN A NOTE OF FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AS WELL AS APPLI CABLE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT JEWELLERY WEIGHIN G 1979.92 GMS AND SILVER ARTICLES WEIGHING 3229.00 GMS FOUND AT T HE TIME OF SEARCH WERE RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AND HIS FAMIL Y MEMBERS FROM THEIR RELATIVES AND FRIENDS ON OCCASION OF MAR RIAGE AND OTHER OCCASIONS. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT DURING T HE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS A.O. ON ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSION/EXPLANATION HAS ALLOWED GOLD JEWELLERY T O THE EXTENT OF 500 GMS PER MARRIED LADY, 250 GMS PER UNMARRIED LADY AND 100 GMS PER MALE MEMBER. FOLLOWING THE CBDT INSTRUC TION, A.O. HAS ALLOWED IN ALL 1200 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY (VALU E RS.30,03,600/-) TO FAMILY OF ASSESSEE AS AGAINST 19 79.92 GMS (VALUE RS. 51,08,301/-) FOUND & INVENTORIZED IN COU RSE OF SEARCH. FOLLOWING THIS, AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 10, 26,240/- (BEING 1 / 2 OF RS. 20,52,479/) IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE BY TRE ATING THE GOLD JEWELLERY /SILVER ARTICLES AS UNEXPLAINED POSSESSION AND TAXING THE SAME U/S 69A OF THE ACT. HERE AO'S ACTIO N IS LEGALLY JUSTIFIED AND I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON FOR INTERVEN TION AS PRAYED BY THE ASSESSEE. NOW COMING TO THE ALTERNATIVE PLEA OF TELESCOPING B ENEFIT OF RS. 96,220/- BEING ACTUAL CASH BALANCE AVAILABLE WI TH THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 436 & 434/JP/2017 MOHAMMED AKHLAQ, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, JAIPUR 6 AND HER WIFE SH MD SHAMI AKHLAQ , ASSESSEE HAS ASKE D FOR SUITABLE RELIEF BY ALLOWING THIS AS EXPENDITURE FOR TREATING THE GOLD DETERMINED BY THE AO AS UNEXPLAINED GOLD JEWELLERY/ SILVER ARTICLE. I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON FOR ALLOWING THIS RELIEF T O THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS DISCUSSED ABO VE, ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS HEREBY SUSTAINED, ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSE ES APPEAL IN GR NO. 1 FAILS. 7. AGAINST THE SAID FINDING, THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT IN COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE SAME EXPLAN ATION, AS WE HAVE NOTED ABOVE, WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY AUTHORIZED OFFIC ER OF SEARCH TEAM IN VIEW OF GUIDELINES ISSUED BY CBDT RELATING TO SE IZURE OF GOLD JEWELLERY ETC. WHICH WAS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARC H AND, THEREFORE, NO ITEM OF GOLD JEWELLERY/SILVER JEWELLERY/UTENSILS WE RE SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS, THE LD. AO BASIS THE SAME EXPLANATION HAS ONLY ALLOWED MINIMUM GOLD JEWELLERY, AS PER CBDT GUIDELINES, TO THE EXTENT OF 500 GMS PER MARRI ED LADY, 250 GMS PER UNMARRIED LADY AND 100 GMS PER MALE MEMBER. THU S LD. AO ALLOWED IN ALL 1200 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY (VALUE RS . 30,03,600/-) TO FAMILY OF ASSESSEE AS AGAINST 1979.92 GMS (VALUE RS . 51,08,301/-) FOUND IN COURSE OF SEARCH. 8. THE LD. AR DRAWN OUR REFERENCE TO THE CBDT INSTR UCTION NO. 1916 DATED 11/05/1994 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: - INSTANCES OF SEIZURE OF JEWELLERY OF SMALL QUANTIT Y IN COURSE OF OPERATIONS UNDER SECTION 132 HAVE COME TO THE NOTIC E OF THE BOARD. THE ITA NO. 436 & 434/JP/2017 MOHAMMED AKHLAQ, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, JAIPUR 7 QUESTION OF A COMMON APPROACH TO SITUATIONS WHERE S EARCH PARTIES COME ACROSS ITEMS OF JEWELLERY, HAS BEEN EXAMINED B Y THE BOARD AND FOLLOWING GUIDELINES ARE ISSUED FOR STRICT COMPLIAN CE. (I) IN THE CASE OF A WEATH-TAX ASSESSEE, GOLD JEWELLERY AND ORNAMENTS FOUND IN EXCESS OF THE GROSS WEIGHT DECLA RED IN THE WEALTH- TAX RETURN ONLY NEED BE SEIZED. (II) IN THE CASE OF A PERSON NOT ASSESSED TO WEALTH-TAX GOLD JEWELLERY AND ORNAMENTS TO THE EXTENT OF 500 GMS PER MARRIED LADY 250 GMS. PER UNMARRIED LADY AND 100 GMS PER MALE MEMBER OF THE F AMILY NEED NOT BE SEIZED. (III) THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER MAY, HAVING REGARD TO THE ST ATUS OF THE FAMILY, AND THE CUSTOM AND PRACTICES OF THE COMMUNI TY TO WHICH THE FAMILY BELONGS AND OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, DECIDE TO EXCLUDE A LARGER QUANTITY OF JEWELLERY AND ORNAMENTS FROM SEI ZURE. THIS SHOULD BE REPORTED TO THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX/COMMISSIONER AUTHORISING THE SEARCH AT THE TIME OF FURNISHING THE SEARCH REPORT. (IV) IN ALL CASES, A DETAILED INVENTORY OF THE JEWELLERY AND ORNAMENTS FOUND MUST BE PREPARED TO BE USED FOR ASSESSMENT PU RPOSES. THESE GUIDELINES MAY PLEASE BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTIC E OF THE OFFICERS IN YOUR REGION. 9. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR THAT IN THE SAID G UIDELINES, THE MINIMUM JEWELLERY ALLOWED TO EVEN A MARRIED LADY JU ST MARRIED OR EVEN MARRIED 20 YEARS BACK AND UNMARRIED LADY EVEN MAY B E 3-5 YEARS OF AGE. AT THE SAME TIME, IT PROVIDES THAT AUTHORIZED OFFICER, HAVING REGARD TO THE STATUS OF FAMILY AND THE CUSTOM AND PRACTICE S OF THE COMMUNITY TO WHICH FAMILY BELONGS AND OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, MAY ITA NO. 436 & 434/JP/2017 MOHAMMED AKHLAQ, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, JAIPUR 8 DECIDE TO EXCLUDE A LARGE QUANTITY OF JEWELLERY AND ORNAMENTS FOR SEIZURE IN COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ASSESSEE BELONGS T O REPUTED OLD JAGIRDAR FAMILY AND SO ENJOYING HIGH STATUS IN SOCI ETY, MARRIED ABOUT 30 YEARS BACK WHEN IN MARRIAGE MOSTLY GOLD JEWELLERY W ERE GIVEN TO DAUGHTERS ON MARRIAGE AS THERE WERE NO OTHER VALUAB LE THINGS FOR GIFTS IN THOSE DAYS. THE ASSESSEE BELONGS TO MUSLIM COMMU NITY WHERE THERE IS CUSTOM AND COMMUNITY PRACTICE TO GIVE LARGE QUAN TITY OF GOLD ORNAMENTS AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE. ONE DAUGHTER IS MARRIED AND THE OTHER TWO DAUGHTERS OF ASSESSEE ARE OF MARRIAGEABLE AGE AND SO LOOKING AT THAT, OFTEN GOLD ORNAMENTS ETC. ARE GIVEN AS GIF TS ETC. ON FUNCTIONS AND OCCASIONS BY FRIENDS & RELATIVES. THE ASSESSEE IS ENJOYING A STATUS OF PROMINENT BUILDER GROUP AND, THEREFORE ALSO THER E EXISTS CIRCUMSTANCES TO RECEIVE OFTEN GIFTS OF GOLD JEWELL ERY/SILVER ARTICLES. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE GOLD JEWELLERY OF 1979.92 GMS FOUND FROM ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS DESERVES TO BE TREA TED AS EXPLAINED. THE SILVER ARTICLES OF 3.229 KG (VALUE RS. 1,52,222 /-) FOUND FROM SAID ENTIRE FAMILY ARE QUITE NEGLIGIBLE AS SUCH SILVER A RTICLES ARE OFTEN RECEIVED IN GIFTS AND OCCASIONALLY ALSO PURCHASED. THE LD. AO IS WRONG IN ALLOWING ONLY 1.107 KG (VALUE RS. 52,222/-) AS EXPL AINED AND REMAINING 2,222 KG (VALUE RS. 1,00,000/-) AS NOT PROPERLY EXP LAINED. THUS THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,26,240/- (1/2 OF RS. 20,52,479/- ) IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE BY TREATING THE GOLD JEWELLERY/SILVER ARTI CLES AS UNEXPLAINED POSSESSION AND SUBJECTING THE SAME TO TAX U/S 69A I S WRONG, UNJUST AND BAD IN LAW. 10. FURTHER, THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE CO-ORDINATE B ENCH DECISION IN CASE OF SH. VIBHU AGGARWAL VS. DCIT, CC-06, NEW DEL HI (ITA NO. 1540/DEL/2015 DATED 04/05/2018) WHICH HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF ITA NO. 436 & 434/JP/2017 MOHAMMED AKHLAQ, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, JAIPUR 9 THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF ASHOK CHADH A VS. ITO (14 TAXMANN.COM 57) AND DECISION OF THE HONBLE RAJASTH AN HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS SATYA NARAIN PATNI (46 TAXMANN.COM 4 40). 11. THE LD CIT DR IS HEARD WHO HAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUE D THE MATTER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS BEEN REASONABLE IN AL LOWING THE CREDIT FOR JEWELLERY POSSESSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAM ILY AND THE EXCESS JEWELLERY HAS RIGHTLY BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX. HE ACCO RDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD C IT(A) AND THE SAME SHOULD BE CONFIRMED. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE T HROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS MARRI ED FOR LAST 30 YEARS AND THE FAMILY OF THE ASSESSEE CONSISTS OF HIS WIFE , THREE DAUGHTERS OUT OF WHICH TWO ARE UNMARRIED AND ONE UNMARRIED SON. I T IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE OVER THE PERIOD OF TIME HAD PURCH ASED SOME GOLD JEWELLERY FOR HIMSELF AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS, AND F URTHER CUSTOMARY POSSESSION OF GOLD JEWELLERY/SILVER ITEMS ON ACCOUN T OF MARRIAGE GIFTS AND GIFTS ON OTHER SOCIAL OCCASIONS AND FESTIVITIES TO THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS CANNOT BE DENIED. THE LIMITED QU ESTION FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHAT IS THE REASONABLE QUANTITY OF JEWELLERY WHICH CAN BE CONSIDERED AS ACQUIRED/RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE OVER THE PERIOD OF TIME AND WHICH CAN BE CONSIDERED AS EXPLAINED FOR T AX PURPOSES. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, GOLD JEWELLERY WEIGHIN G 1979.92 GMS AND SILVER JEWELLERY/ITEMS WEIGHING 3229 GMS WERE FOUND IN POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE. IN HER STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) , THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE (DULY ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE) HAS STATED AS UNDER: IZ'U 4 VKT FNUAKD 2-12-2011 DKS VKIDS EDKU UA-17]18 ]19 XKSJO UXJ] FLFOY YKBZUL] T;IQJ IJ VK;DJ VF/KFU;E DH /KKJK 132 DS RGR GQBZ RYKKH ITA NO. 436 & 434/JP/2017 MOHAMMED AKHLAQ, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, JAIPUR 10 DH DK;ZOKGH DS NKSJKU VKIDS RFKK VKIDS IFR JH EKSGE EN V[KYKD DS DEJS LS IZKIR DQY :I;S 51]08]301@&DH LKSUS O PKWANH DH TOSYJH IZKIR GQBZ FTLDH VALUATION GEKJS GOVT. APPROVED VALUER JH DSYKK PKSGKU TH DJDS ANNEXURE JF-VII O ANNEXURE SF ESA NTZ DH\ D;K VKI BL VALUATION LS LARQ'V GS RFKK D;K VKI ;G CRK LDRH GS FD MIJKSDR TO SYJH FDL&2 LS LACAF/KR GS RFKK MLS ; DJUS DS LZKSR D;K GS A BLH TOSYJH ESA VKIDS J&K CSAD YKWDJ UA 90 LS IKBZ O ?KJ IJ EWY;KADU GSRQ YKBZ XBZ TOSYJH 'KKFEY GSA MKJ MIJKSDR DFFKR TOSYJH DK TKS VALUATION VKIDS VALUER JH DSYKK PKSGKU US DH GS VKSJ ANNEXURE JF-VII O ANNEXURE SF ESA NTZ GS] MLLS ESA IW.KZR;K LARQ'V GWWAA ;G TOSYJH TKS CSAD YKWDJ J&K CSAD YKDJ UA-90 RFKK GEKJS ?KJ LS IZKIR GQBZ GS OG ESJS LO;A] ESJS IFR JH EKSG EEN V[KYKD] ESJH NKS VFOOKFGR CSVH VKLEK O QKSFT;K] ESJS IQ= JH EKSGEEN LEH RFKK ESJH NKS UOKTH VJFQ;K O EKGSJK RFKK ESJH FOOKFGR IQ=H XTKYK LS LAC AF/KR GSA IJURQ DKSU LH TOSYJH FDLLS LACAF/KR GS ;G ESA CRKUS ESA VLEFKZ GW WA D;KSAFD ;S TOSYJH GE COMMON :I LS IZ;KSX DJRS GSA ;S TOSYJH GEUS FOFHKUU R;KSG KJKSA O VOLJKSA IJ VIUH CPR LS ; DH GS RFKK DQN TOSYJH BLESA LS GH GE S ESJS EKRK&FIRK RFKK FJRSNKJKSA US GEKJH 'KKNH DS VOLJ IJ NH FKHA VIUH LKJH TOSYJH GE VIUS ?KJ 17]18]19 XKSJO UXJ] FLFOY YKBZUL T;IQJ RFKK VIUS CS AD YKWDLZ UA- 90] J&K CSAD] ,E-VKBZ JKSM] T;IQJ ESA J[KRS GSA BL YKWDJ DH LKJH TOSYJH FNUAKD 01-12- 2011 DKS GEKJS VUQJKS/K IJ GE VKIDKS LVKQ DS LKFK T KDJ VIUS MIJKSDR CRK;S X;S EDKU IJ EWY;KADU O LR;KIJ DS FY;S YK;K X; K FKKA ESA ;G HKH LI'V DJUK PKGRH GWWA FD BL TOSYJH ESA ESJH CSVH XTK YK O MLDH NKS CSVH VJFQ;K O EKGSJK DH HKH TOSYJH LEFEYR GSA ESJH CSVH XTKYK NKS FNU IGYS VKXJK 'KKNH ESA XBZ FKH RKS OG VIUH TOSYJH LQJ{KK D H N`F'V LS GEKJS ?KJ IJ J[K XBZ FKHA 13. BASIS THE ABOVE STATEMENT, THE SEARCH TEAM HAS FOUND THE POSSESSION OF THE ABOVE JEWELLERY BY THE ASSESSEE A ND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY WITHIN THE REASONABLE LIMITS AND HAS NOT CARRIED ANY SEIZURE OF THE AFORESAID JEWELLERY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HOWEVER CONSIDERED JEWELLERY PERTAINING TO ASSESSEE, HIS WI FE, TWO UNMARRIED DAUGHTERS AND ONE SON AS EXPLAINED AS PER MINIMUM T HRESHOLD PRESCRIBED BY THE AFORESAID CBDT CIRCULAR AND THE R EMAINING JEWELLERY STATED TO BE BELONGING TO MARRIED DAUGHTER AND TWO GRANDCHILDREN AS ITA NO. 436 & 434/JP/2017 MOHAMMED AKHLAQ, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, JAIPUR 11 UNEXPLAINED. TO OUR MIND, ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS STA TED ON OATH IN HER STATEMENT U/S 132(4) THAT THE JEWELLERY ALSO BE LONGS TO HER MARRIED DAUGHTER AND HER TWO CHILDREN BESIDES OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS, THERE IS NO BASIS WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RESTRICT THE SAME TO ONLY FEW MEMBERS EXCLUDING THE OTHER MEMBERS. ONCE THE ASSE SSEE HAS STATED THAT THOUGH THE JEWELLERY HAS BEEN FOUND IN HER POS SESSION, A PART OF THE JEWELLERY BELONGS TO AND THUS OWNED BY HER MARR IED DAUGHTER, THE SAID STATEMENT CANNOT BE NEGATED IN ABSENCE OF ANYT HING CONTRARY ON RECORD. UNDER SECTION 69A, THE LANGUAGE USED IS WH ERE THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE OWNER OF ANY JEWELLERY, THEREFORE MERE POSSESSION IS NOT SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO DETERMINE THE OWNERSHIP ESPECI ALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED ON OATH U/S 132(4) THAT A PART OF JEWELLERY BELONGS TO/OWNED BY HER MARRIED DAUGHTER. THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE READ AS A WHOLE AND NOT IN PARTS. THE REVENU E CANNOT TAKE THE STAND THAT ONLY PART OF THE STATEMENT IS ACCEPTED A ND REMAINING IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. WHERE THE REVENUE DISPUTES A PART OF T HE STATEMENT AS NOT CORRECT, THE ONUS SHIFTS ON THE REVENUE TO PROVE OT HERWISE AND NOT THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, GOING STRICTLY BY CLAUSE (I) OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR DATED 11.05.1994, THE GOLD JEWELLERY FOUND IN POSSE SSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS WITHIN THE PERMISSIBLE LIMITS AS BELONG ING TO THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS INCLUDING MARRIED DAUGHTER AND CHILDREN. 14. FURTHER, IF WE READ CLAUSE (II) OF THE SAID CBD T CIRCULAR, EVEN AS PER SAID CLAUSE, THE SEARCH TEAM HAS FOUND THE POSS ESSION OF THE ABOVE JEWELLERY BY THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY WITHIN THE REASONABLE LIMITS AS PER THE STATUS, CUSTOMS AND PR ACTICES OF THE COMMUNITY TO WHICH THE FAMILY BELONGS AND HAS NOT C ARRIED ANY SEIZURE OF THE AFORESAID JEWELLERY. THE ASSESSEE BELONGS TO A REPUTED OLD ITA NO. 436 & 434/JP/2017 MOHAMMED AKHLAQ, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, JAIPUR 12 JAGIRDAR FAMILY AND SO ENJOYING HIGH STATUS IN SOCI ETY, MARRIED ABOUT 30 YEARS BACK AND HAS THREE DAUGHTERS AND ONE SON AND POSSESSION OF GOLD AND SILVER JEWELLERY IS CUSTOMAR Y IN THE INDIAN SOCIETY AND ALSO GIFTS ON MARRIAGES AND OTHER SOCIA L FUNCTIONS. THE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT WHERE THE CBDT LOOKING TO SUC H CUSTOMS AND PRACTICES PREVAILING THROUGHOUT INDIA, IN ONE WAY O R THE ANOTHER, CAME OUT WITH THIS CIRCULAR AND THE SEARCH TEAM MAKES NO SUCH SEIZURE EFFECTIVELY ACCEPTING THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE, C USTOMS AND PRACTICES AND POSSESSION OF THE JEWELLERY, IT SHOULD ALSO MEA N THAT TO THE EXTENT OF THE AFORESAID JEWELLERY, FOUND IN POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE, EVEN SOURCE CANNOT BE QUESTIONED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, L OOKING AT THE STATUS OF THE FAMILY AND THE JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE SE ARCH, IT WAS HELD TO BE REASONABLE AND THEREFORE, THE SEARCH TEAM, IN TH E FIRST INSTANCE, DID NOT SEIZE THE SAID JEWELLERY AND THUS, IN OUR VIEW, SUBSEQUENT ADDITION IS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION REGARDING SILVER JEWELLERY AND ITEMS FOUND IN POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE SOURCE CAN BE SAID TO BE DULY EXPLAINED. IN THIS REGARD, USEFUL REFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN TO HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT DECISION IN CASE OF CIT VS SATYA NARAIN PATNI 46 TAXMANN.COM 440 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 8. THUS, FROM THE PERUSAL OF ABOVE CHART AS WELL A S STATEMENTS, IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT JEWELLERY WHICH HAS BEE N FOUND IN POSSESSION OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS IS IN ACCORDANCE W ITH CUSTOMS AND PRACTICE PREVALENT IN THE COMMUNITY AND IN ACCO RDANCE WITH STATUS OF THE FAMILY. 9. ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS) AS ALSO THE TRIBUNAL, WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT GIVEN ANY BASIS FOR RESTRICTING THE CLAIM OF JEWELLERY AT 1600 GMS AS R EASONABLE WHILE ITA NO. 436 & 434/JP/2017 MOHAMMED AKHLAQ, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, JAIPUR 13 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SIMPLY MENTIONED ABOUT TH ERE BEING FOUR LADIES, BUT IGNORED THAT IN ADDITION TO FOUR LADIES, THERE WERE FOUR MALE MEMBERS SO ALSO THREE CHILDREN AND I F THE MALE MEMBERS SO ALSO THE CHILDREN ARE CONSIDERED, THEN E VEN FACTUALLY THE CLAIM OF RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE APPEARS TO BE REAS ONABLE IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID INSTRUCTION DATED 11.5.1994. IF THE CIRCULAR IS STRICTLY FOLLOWED, THEN TO THE EXTENT OF 2700 GMS, NO JEWELLERY COULD BE SEIZED. (500X4 LADIES+100X7 MALE+ CHILDREN =2700 GMS.). IN THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAN D THE BASIS OF 1600 GMS HELD REASONABLE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 10. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, THE TRIBUNAL HAS RIGHTL Y CONSIDERED THE SAID ISSUE AND WE ARE ALSO IN CONFORMITY WITH THE O RDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THE CENT RAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES KEEPING IN VIEW THE STATUS OF THE FAMI LY, CUSTOMS AND PRACTICE OF THE COMMUNITY, CAME DOWN WITH THE S AID CIRCULAR AND ONE HAS TO GO WITH THE WEIGHT AND NOT WITH THE VALUE AS THE VALUE MAY FLUCTUATE OVER THE YEARS. THE TRIBUNAL HA S ALSO APPRECIATED THE FACT ON RECORD THAT THE MARRIAGE OF THREE SONS WERE PERFORMED IN THE YEAR 1996, 2000 AND 2003 AND ALL THE MARRIAGES INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE AND THREE SONS WER E PERFORMED PRIOR TO 2003. IT IS ALSO ON RECORD THAT THE STATEM ENT OF VARIOUS FAMILY MEMBERS WERE RECORDED AND NONE HAS STATED TH AT THESE ARE NOT PERSONAL WEARING JEWELLERY AND SAME WERE RE CEIVED BY THE RESPECTIVE LADIES/DAUGHTER-IN-LAW ON/OR AT THE TIME OF THEIR MARRIAGES EITHER FROM THE PARENTAL SIDE OR IN-LAWS SIDE AND EVEN SUBSEQUENTLY AT THE TIME OF BIRTH OF THEIR CHILDREN . ITA NO. 436 & 434/JP/2017 MOHAMMED AKHLAQ, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, JAIPUR 14 11. ON PERUSAL OF THE CIRCULAR OF THE BOARD, QUOTED SUPRA, IT IS CLEAR THAT IN THE CASE OF WEALTH TAX ASSESSEE, WHAT EVER GOLD JEWELLERY AND ORNAMENTS HAVE BEEN FOUND AND DECLARE D IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN, NEED NOT BE SEIZED. HOWEVER, SUB -CLAUSE (II) PRESCRIBES THAT IN CASE OF A PERSON NOT ASSESSED TO WEALTH TAX GOLD JEWELLERY AND ORNAMENTS TO THE EXTENT OF 500 G MS PER MARRIED LADY, 250 GMS PER UNMARRIED LADY AND 100 GM S PER MALE MEMBER OF THE FAMILY NEED NOT BE SEIZED. SUB-CLAUSE (III) ALSO PRESCRIBES THAT THE AUTHORISED OFFICER MAY, HAVING REGARD TO THE STATUS OF THE FAMILY, AND THE CUSTOM AND PRACTICES OF THE COMMUNITY TO WHICH THE FAMILY BELONGS AND OTHER CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, DECIDE TO EXCLUDE A LARGER QUANTITY OF JEWELLERY AND ORNAMENTS FROM SEIZURE. 12. IT IS TRUE THAT THE CIRCULAR OF THE CBDT, REFER RED TO SUPRA DT. 11/05/1994 ONLY REFERS TO THE JEWELLERY TO THE EXTE NT OF 500 GMS PER MARRIED LADY, 250 GMS PER UNMARRIED LADY AND 10 0 GMS PER MALE MEMBER OF THE FAMILY, NEED NOT BE SEIZED AND I T DOES NOT SPEAK ABOUT THE QUESTIONING OF THE SAID JEWELLERY F ROM THE PERSON WHO HAS BEEN FOUND WITH POSSESSION OF THE SAID JEWE LLERY. HOWEVER, THE BOARD, LOOKING TO THE INDIAN CUSTOMS A ND TRADITIONS, HAS FAIRLY EXPRESSED THAT JEWELLERY TO THE SAID EXT ENT WILL NOT BE SEIZED AND ONCE THE BOARD IS ALSO OF THE EXPRESS OP INION THAT THE SAID JEWELLERY CANNOT BE SEIZED, IT SHOULD NORMALLY MEAN THAT ANY JEWELLERY, FOUND IN POSSESION OF A MARRIED LADY TO THE EXTENT OF 500 GMS, 250 GMS PER UNMARRIED LADY AND 100 GMS PER MALE MEMBER OF THE FAMILY WILL ALSO NOT BE QUESTIONED AB OUT ITS SOURCE AND ACQUISATION. WE CAN TAKE NOTICE OF THE FACT THA T AT THE TIME OF WEDDING, THE DAUGHTER/DAUGHTER-IN-LAW RECEIVES GOLD ORNAMENTS ITA NO. 436 & 434/JP/2017 MOHAMMED AKHLAQ, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, JAIPUR 15 JEWELLERY AND OTHER GOODS NOT ONLY FROM PARENTAL SI DE BUT IN- LAWS SIDE AS WELL AT THE TIME OF 'VIDAI' (FAREWELL) OR/AND AT THE TIME WHEN THE DAUGHTER-IN-LAW ENTERS THE HOUSE OF H ER HUSBAND. WE CAN ALSO TAKE NOTICE OF THE FACT THAT THEREAFTER ALSO, SHE CONTINUES TO RECEIVE SOME SMALL ITEMS BY VARIOUS OT HER CLOSE FRIENDS AND RELATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES AS WELL AS ON THE AUSPICIOUS OCCASION OF BIRTH OF A CHILD WHETHER MAL E OR FEMALE AND THE CBDT, LOOKING TO SUCH CUTOMS PREVAILING THR OUGHOUT INDIA, IN ONE WAY OR THE ANOTHER, CAME OUT WITH THI S CIRCULAR AND WE ACCORDINGLY ARE OF THE FIRM OPINION THAT IT SHOU LD ALSO MEAN THAT TO THE EXTENT OF THE AFORESAID JEWELLERY, FOUN D IN POSSESSION OF THE VAROIUS PERSONS, EVEN SOURCE CANNOT BE QUEST IONED. IT IS CERTAINLY 'STRIDHAN' OF THE WOMAN AND NORMALLY NO Q UESTION AT LEAST TO THE SAID EXTENT CAN BE MADE. HOWEVER, IF T HE AUTHORIZED OFFICERS OR/AND THE ASSESSING OFFICERS, FIND JEWELL ERY BEYOND THE SAID WEIGHT, THEN CERTAINLY THEY CAN QUESTION THE S OURCE OF ACQUISATION OF THE JEWELLERY AND ALSO IN APPROPRIAT E CASES, IF NO PROPER EXPLANATION HAS BEEN OFFERED, CAN TREAT THE JEWELLERY BEYOND THE SAID LIMIT AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF THE PERSON WITH WHOM THE SAID JEWELLERY HAS BEEN FOUND. 13. ADMITTEDLY, LOOKING TO THE STATUS OF THE FAMILY AND THE JEWELLERY FOUND IN POSSESSSION OF FOUR LADIES, WAS HELD TO BE REASONABLE AND THEREFORE, THE AUTHORIZED OFFICERS, IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, DID NOT SEIZE THE SAID JEWELLERY AS THE S AME BEING WITHIN THE TOLERABLE LIMIT OR THE LIMITS PRESCRIBED BY THE BOARD AND THUS, IN OUR VIEW, SUBSEQUENT ADDITION IS ALSO NOT JUSTIF ICABLE ON THE ITA NO. 436 & 434/JP/2017 MOHAMMED AKHLAQ, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, JAIPUR 16 PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND RIGHTLY DELETED B Y BOTH THE TWO APPELLATE AUTHORITIES NAMELY' CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL. 14. IT CAN ALSO BE OBSERVED HERE THAT PRIOR TO 1992 , WHEN THE EXEMPTION LIMIT UNDER THE WEALTH TAX ACT WAS ABOUT RS.1,00,000/- OR RS.1,50,000/-, THEN IN MOST OF THE CASES, RETURNS WERE FILED UNDER THE WEALTH TAX ACT BECAUSE EVEN IN CASE OF POSSESSION OF 500 GMS PER LADY AND THE OTHER ASSETS NAMELY; CAPITAL, INVESTMENTS IN FIRMS/SHARES, LANDED PROPER TY ETC. ETC. BEING TAXABLE RETURN OF WEALTH WERE INVARIABLY FILE D BY THE ASSESSEES. HOWEVER, BY THE FINANCE ACT, 1992 W.E.F. 01/04/1993 DRASTIC CHANGE WAS INTRODUCED UNDER THE WEALTH TAX ACT WHERE ONLY SOME ASSETS U/S 2(EA) CAME WITHIN THE PERVIEW OF THE DEFINITION OF AN 'ASSET' UNDER THE WEALTH TAX AND B Y AND LARGE, THE OTHER ASSETS NAMELY; LIQUID, CAPITAL INVESTMENT S IN FIRMS/SHARES, ONE HOUSE PROPERTY, COMMERCIAL ASSETS WERE EXEMPT AND EVEN THE LIMIT OF OTHER ASSETS WAS RAISE D TO 15 LACS (FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 TO 2009-10) AND TH EREAFTER, BY AND LARGE, EVEN THE ASSESSEES, WHO WERE FURNISHING RETURNS PRIOR TO 01/04/1992, IN VIEW OF THE DRASTIC AMENDMENT MAD E UNDER THE WEALTH TAX ACT, CHOSE NOT TO FILE WEALTH TAX RETURN AS THERE WAS NO LIABILITY FOR FURNISHING WEALTH TAX RETURNS. THA T DOES NOT MEAN THAT WHATEVER ASSETS WERE THERE IN THEIR POSSESSION , NOT DISCLOSED UNDER THE WEALTH TAX ACT, REMAINED UNDISCLOSED. MAY BE, LATER ON, ON ACCOUNT OF INCREASE IN THE GOLD/SILVER PRICE S, VALUE OF GEMS/ STONES, VALUE OF JEWELLERY MAY HAVE EXCEEDED BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IF A PERSON HAS NOT FILED WEALTH TAX RETURN, THEN JEWELLERY EVEN TO THE SAID EXTENT OF 500 GMS P RESCRIBED BY ITA NO. 436 & 434/JP/2017 MOHAMMED AKHLAQ, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, JAIPUR 17 THE AFORESAID CIRCULAR, BECAME UNDISCLOSED. ADMITTE DLY, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE JEWELLER Y, SO FOUND, WHICH HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED HEREINABOVE, WAS NOT ADMI TTED BY THE FAMILY MEMBERS AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. ALL THE LADIE S IN THE FAMILY ADMITTED THAT THE JEWELLERY FOUND WERE ALL THEIR OW N AND SOME OF THE JEWELLERY WAS LYING IN CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF T HEIR MOTHER-IN- LAW AND IN INDIAN CONDITIONS, IT HAPPENS THAT THE D AUGHTER-IN-LAW KEEPS HER JEWELLERY WITH HER MOTHER-IN-LAW OR/AND H EAD OF THE FAMILY AND TAKES THE SAME WHENEVER REQUIRED FOR SOM E OCCASION IN THE FAMILY. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE JEWELLERY IS PER SONAL WEARING IN NATURE AND THE REVENUE HAS NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ITEMS, WHICH WERE FOUND, WERE NOT PER SONAL WEARING OF THE LADIES. 15. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR VIEW, THE TRIBUNAL HAS CORRECTLY ANALYZED THE CIRCULAR OF THE BOARD AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY OR PERVERSITY IN THE O RDER OF THE ITAT SO AS TO CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE OF THIS COURT. I N OUR VIEW, NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISE OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT. 15. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND IN THE ENTIRE TY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWIN G THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (SUPRA), THE MATTER IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS SET-ASIDE AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE IS ALLOWED. 16. IN ITA NO. 434/JP/2017, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ITA NO. 436 & 434/JP/2017 MOHAMMED AKHLAQ, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, JAIPUR 18 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) IS WRONG, UNJUST AND HAS ERRED IN LA W IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 10,26,240/- MADE TO THE INCOME OF T HE APPELLANT BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE IN ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY VALUING RS. 20, 52,479/- (WEIGHING 779.92 GMS) AND SILVER ARTICLES VALUING R S. 1,00,000/- CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM FR IENDS AND RELATIVES ON MARRIAGE AND OTHER OCCASION. 17. ADMITTEDLY, UNDER THE IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES AS IN ITA NO. 436/JP/17, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING OUR DETAIL DISC USSIONS AND REASONING AS IN ITA NO. 436/JP/17, THE MATTER IS DECIDED IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AU THORITIES IS SET- ASIDE AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. IN THE RESULT, BOTH OF THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24/05/2019. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 24/05/2019. *GANESH KR. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- MOHAMMED AKHLAQ, JAIPUR & SMT. SHAHEEN AKHLAQ, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR ITA NO. 436 & 434/JP/2017 MOHAMMED AKHLAQ, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, JAIPUR 19 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE { ITA NO. 436 & 434/JP/2017} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR