BABULAL D. MEHTA, MUMBAI V. DCIT- CC- 2(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4935/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4740 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 23-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHAITNYA ANJARIA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Search and seizure; Set aside
• Section: 69; 132; 143(3); 153A; 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH MU MBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4935/MUM/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 ) BABULAL D. MEHTA 1 7/19, KANTI BHUVAN, 1 ST PARSIWADA LANE, MUMBAI- 400004. PAN: AEEPM0912M VS. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(2) 8 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO. 806, OLD CGO BUILDING, PRATISHTHA BHAWAN, MUMBAI-400020. APPELLANT RESPONDE NT APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL (AR) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI CHAITNYA ANJARIA (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 01.08.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMEN T : 07.08.2019 ORDERUNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ; 1. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-48 [HEREINAFTE R REFERRED AS THE LD. CIT(A)], MUMBAI DATED 21.06.2018, WHICH IN TURN ARISES FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.12.2017 PASSED UNDER SECT ION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT AS ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF 270 GMS. OF GOLD WORT H RS.6,93,630/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IGNORING THE ALLOWABLE WEA LTH WHICH A LADY AND A MAN CAN POSSESS. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADD ITION OF 270 GMS. OF GOLD WORTH RS.6, 93,630/- OUT OF 370 GMS. OF GOLD J EWELLERY BELONGING TO MRS. NISHA M. MEHTA (APPELLANT'S BROTHER'S SON'S WI FE) BY TREATING ONLY 100 GMS. AS CUSTOMARY BY NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE E XCESS ALLEGED ITA NO. 4935 MUM 2018-BABULAL D. MEHTA. 2 UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH H AS BEEN RECEIVED AT MARRIAGE AND OTHER FESTIVALS AS A PART OF INDIAN TR ADITIONS. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE WEIGHT OF THE G OLD JEWELLERY BELONGING TO MRS. NISHA M. MEHTA IS ONLY 370 GMS. WHICH IS BE LOW 500 GMS. AND WHICH AS PER CBDT INSTRUCTIONS CANNOT BE SEIZED. 4. FURTHER ALSO CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, SO CALLED EXCESS JEWELLERY WAS RETURNED BY THE OFFICER IN CHARGE AT THE TIME OF SE ARCH AFTER DUE VERIFICATION AND THUS NO CONTRARY VIEW COULD BE TAKEN BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. 5. THAT THE ADDITION AS ABOVE HAS BEEN MADE AGAINST TH E FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND DETAILED SUBMISSIONS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE CIT(A) AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED PROPERLY. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 ON 03.12.2016 DECLARING TOT AL INCOME OF RS. 4,38,910/-. THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE FAMILY MEMBE RS OF RAJPUTANA GROUP. A SEARCH ACTION UNDER SECTION 132 WAS CARRIE D OUT IN RAJPUTANA GROUP ON 02.12.2015. IN THE SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE IS RESIDENCE AT GIRGAUM MUMBAI WAS ALSO COVERED. CONSEQUENT OF SAID SEARCH PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 153A WAS INITIA TED ON 04.08.2017. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT DURING THE SEARCH ACTION, LOCKER WAS SEIZED WHEREIN CERTAIN GOLD ORNAMENTS WERE FOUND. I N THE LOCKER, FOLLOWING GOLD ORNAMENTS WERE FOUND: SR. NO. PREMISES JEWELLERY FOUND ESTIMATED NET WEIGHT OF GOLD ESTIMATED NET WEIGHT OF DIAMOND TOTAL VALUE 1 R 1704, 17 TH FLOOR, A WING SHREEPATI TOWER, PIMPALWADI, GOREGAON, MUMBAI 891.30 GMS. 13.54 CT. 2448099 ITA NO. 4935 MUM 2018-BABULAL D. MEHTA. 3 2 LOCKER NO. 2226, BANK OF INDIA, C.P. TANK ROAD BRANCH, MUMBAI 811.70 GMS (RS. 18,95,175/-) 10.207 CT. (RS. 764000/-) 2659175 3. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCE O F ACQUISITION OF ORNAMENTS. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS REPLY DATED 25.11 .2017. THE CONTENTS OF REPLY AS EXTRACTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IS REPRO DUCED BELOW: 6.2 IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE'S AR VID E LETTER DATED 25-11-2017 SUBMITTED AS UNDER: DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE, THE TOTAL GOLD FOUND AND SEIZED WAS 1703 GMS AND DIAMONDS 23.747 CT. WE WOULD LIKE TO S AY THE ASSESSEE WIFE SMT. BHAGUBEN B MEHTA IS ASSESSED TO WEALTH TAX REG ULARLY SINCE A. Y.2008-09 TO A.Y.2014-1S. IN HER HUSBAND OR A. Y.20 12-13 TO TODAY SHE IS HOLD 1143.3 GM GOLD AND 27.1 CT DIAMONDS AND SHE IS FULLY RETURNED REGULARLY AND PAYING THE WEALTH TAX OUT OF THE TOTA L GOLD FOUND AND SEIZED (1703 GMS) AND SHOWN IN RETURN OF WEALTH IS 1143.3 GMS. THE DIFFERENCE IS 559.7 GM. THE EXPLANATION OF DIFFERENCE IS AS UNDER : BABULAL MEHTA: 84.3 GM GOLD, A MAN OF 60 YEARS IN H IS LIFE CANNOT SAVED/PURCHASED OR RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE ETC. GIRISH B MEHTA : 65 GM GOLD, AN AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS RECEIVED AT THE VARIOUS OCCASION LIKE BIRTHDAY AND IN MARRIAGE GIFT. IT SHO ULD BE CONSIDER; AS PER THE CUSTOM OF SOCIETY. NISHA B MEHTA: GOLD FOUND AND SEIZED IS 370.1 GMS A ND DIAMOND 2.48 CT NISHA IS WIFE OF HIS BROTHER SON, STAY IN BOMBAY AS A JOINT FAMILY MARRIED 3 YEAR BACK, GET THE JEWELLERY AS GIFT FROM FATHER AS WELL AS ILL LAWS. SOURCE IS ONLY GIFT AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE ONLY. IF YOU ACCE PT THE INDIAN CULTURE AND CONSUME, EVERY FATHER AND FAMILY MEMBERS GIVES ACCO RDING TO THE CAPACITY AND AS PER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ALSO EVEN THE GOVT M ADE THE PROGRAM AND GIVE IN THE MARRIAGE OF LADIES. IT IS UPTO YOU TO DECIDE IN THE MATTER. THE REGARDING DIAMOND FOUND AND SEIZED IS 23.747 BUT TH E ASSESSEE IS SHOWING IN RETURN OF WEALTH IS 27.1 CT. IT IS A DECLARED IN TH E INCOME TAX. SO IT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. ITA NO. 4935 MUM 2018-BABULAL D. MEHTA. 4 4. THE REPLY OF ASSESSEE WAS SUMMARIZED BY ASSESSING O FFICER IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: NAME GOLD DIAMOND BAGHUBEN B. MEHTA (WIFE) 1143.30 27.1 CT. BABULAL D MEHTA (SELF) 84.30 0 GIRISH B MEHTA (SON) 65.00 0 NISHA M MEHTA (DAUGHTER) 370.10 2.48 CT. TOTAL 1662.7 29.58 TOTAL FOUND 1703.00 23.747 CT. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF REPLY FURNISH ED BY ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FURNISHED CON CLUDED THAT GOLD ORNAMENTS CLAIMED BY MALE MEMBERS ARE TREATED AS EX PLAINED, HOWEVER, IN CASE OF NISHA MEHTA ONLY 100 GRAM WAS TREATED AS CUSTOMARY AND EXPLAINED AND REMAINING 270 GRAM WAS TREATED AS UNE XPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL B EFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER WAS UPHELD. FURTHER , AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF LD. AUTHORIZED REPR ESENTATIVE (AR) OF THE ASSESSEE AND LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (D R) FOR THE REVENUE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT TH E OUTSET OF HEARING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THERE IS FR OM SMALL DISPUTE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT OUT OF TOTAL GOLD JEWELLERY OF 371 GRA M BELONGS TO A MARRIED ITA NO. 4935 MUM 2018-BABULAL D. MEHTA. 5 FEMALE MEMBER NAMELY NISHA MEHTA. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ACCEPTED ONLY 100 GRAM AS EXPLAINED AND REMAINING 270 GRAM A S UNEXPLAINED. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT AS PER THE CIRCULAR OF CBDT NO. 16/17 AND VARIOUS DECISIONS INCLUDING HONBLE BOMBA Y HIGH COURT IN KOMAL WAZIR VS. DCIT (281 CTR 0506 (BOM), RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. SATYANARAN PATNI [366 ITR 325 RAJ.)], SACHI N GARG VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 3733/DEL/2017 DATED 20.11.2017, NAWAZ SINGH ANIA VS. DCIT IA NO. 3979/MUM/2017 DATED 22.12.2017, SHRI ASHOK J AIN VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 6251/MUM/2016 DATED 25.05.2018, ITA NO. 302 /MUM/2015 IN ZAKAULLAH SIDDQUI VS. ACIT DATED 26.02.2018 AND VID HU AGGARWAL VS. DCIT [93 TAXMANN.COM 275]. THE LD. AR ALSO RELIED U PON THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 1916 DATED 11.05.1994. THE LD. AR F INALLY SUBMITS THAT THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL I S SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE (DR) FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PART IES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN OUR VIE W, A VERY NARROW DISPUTE BEFORE US RELATES TO GOLD JEWELLERY OF 370 GMS WHICH WAS TREATED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTM ENT AT THE HAND OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEF ORE US THAT DISPUTED JEWELLERY IS MUCH BELOW 500 GMS TREATED BY ASSESSIN G OFFICER AS ITA NO. 4935 MUM 2018-BABULAL D. MEHTA. 6 UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IS WITHIN TOLERABLE LIMIT AS PER CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 19 OF 2016. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OF FICER ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO AS SESSEE, HIS WIFE AND OTHER MALE MEMBER OF FAMILY. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF 270 (370-100 =270) GMS OF GO LD JEWELLERY OF NISHA MEHTA A MARRIED FEMALE MEMBER OF ASSESSEES F AMILY. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED BEFORE US THAT AS SESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED ONLY 100 GMS AS EXPLAINED AND REMAINING 27 0 GMS WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED. THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE CBDT CIR CULAR NO. 19 OF 2016 AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COU RT IN CIT VS. SATYA NARAIN PATNI (SUPRA). WE HAVE SEEN THAT THE COORDIN ATE BENCH OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN ASHOK JAIN VS ACIT (SUPRA) BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. SATYA NARAI N PATNI (SUPRA) ON SIMILAR SET OF FACTS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER: 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL STANDS AND FIND THA T SO FAR AS THE FACTUAL ASPECT IS CONCERNED, THE TOTAL JEWELLERY FOUND AT T HE TIME OF SEARCH WAS 580.900 GMS, AS NOTED BY THE CIT(A) IN PARA 8.4.1 O F THE ORDER. IN SO FAR AS THE ADDITION OF `24,43,218/- IS CONCERNED, SAME IS THE VALUE OF JEWELLERY AS WELL AS OTHER VALUABLES INCLUDING SILVER UTENSILS, WHICH HAVE BEEN FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, AND IS SUPPORTED BY THE VALUATI ON REPORT DATED 12.10.2011 BY THE GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER, COPY OF WHICH HA S BEEN FURNISHED IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. PERTINENTLY THE P LEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS CONFINED TO THE TREATMENT OF 580.900 GMS OF G OLD JEWELLERY AS UNEXPLAINED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT TO EXPLAIN THE SAME BY POINTING OUT THAT THE SAME IS WITHIN THE PE RMISSIBLE LIMITS STIPULATED BY THE CBDT CIRCULAR DATED 11.05.1994 (SUPRA). FACT UALLY SPEAKING, THE ITA NO. 4935 MUM 2018-BABULAL D. MEHTA. 7 ASSERTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE JEWELLERY FOUND WAS WITHIN THE LIMITS PRESCRIBED BY THE CBDT BY ITS CIRCULAR IS QUITE JUS TIFIED. THE ONLY ISSUE IS AS TO WHETHER THE SAME WOULD MERIT ADDITION AS UNEXPLA INED IN CASE, IF ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO GIVE CONCRETE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION. OSTENSIBLY, IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY WEALTH TAX RETU RNS. THE HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SATYA NARAIN PATNI (SUPRA ) NOTED THAT THE JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE SEARCH WAS WITHIN THE LIMITS PRESC RIBED BY THE CBDT CIRCULAR AND IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, THE JEWELLERY W ERE NOT SEIZED, AND IT WAS HELD THAT NO ADDITION THEREAFTER WAS JUSTIFIABLE. T HE FACTS IN THE INSTANT CASE ARE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SATYA NARAIN PATNI (SUPRA). THEREFORE W E FIND NO REASON TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION TOWARD UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY. IN SO FAR AS THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF V.G.P. RAVIDAS (SUPRA) IS CONCERNED, OS TENSIBLY IT WAS A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS A WEALTH TAX PAYEE AND THERE FORE, IT WAS REQUIRED OF HIM TO SPECIFICALLY SHOW THE SOURCE OF JEWELLERY FO UND IN EXCESS OF WHAT WAS DECLARED IN THE RESPECTIVE WEALTH TAX RETURNS. IN FACT THE CBDT CIRCULAR DATED 11.05.1994 (SUPRA) SPECIFICALLY CONTAINS PARA (II), WHICH PRESCRIBES THAT IN THE CASE OF WEALTH TAX ASSESSEES GOLD JEWEL LERY AND ORNAMENTS FOUND IN EXCESS OF THE GROSS WEIGHT DECLARED IN THE WEALT H TAX RETURNS ONLY NEED TO BE SEIZED. SHRI ASHOK JAIN THEREFORE, THE FACTS OF THE CASE BE FORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT WERE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN THE INSTANT CA SE. THE INSTANT IS A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ASSESSED TO WEALTH TAX AND THE GOLD JEWELLERY FOUND WAS WITHIN THE PERMISSIBLE LIMITS C ONTAINED IN THE CBDT CIRCULAR DATED 11.05.1994 (SUPRA) AND THEREFORE THE RATIO OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT CLEARLY COVERS THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HOLD SO. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW APPROPRIATE RELIEF AND RECOM PUTE THE INCOME ON THIS ASPECT AFRESH. THUS, THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS IN THIS APPEAL. ITA NO. 4935 MUM 2018-BABULAL D. MEHTA. 8 9. FURTHER DELHI TRIBUNAL IN SACHIN GARG VS. ACIT (SUP RA) AFTER CONSIDERING THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 19 OF 2016 AND FO LLOWING DECISION OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWIN G ORDER: 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BO TH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS AN ADMIT TED FACT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, JEWELLERY (NET WEIGHT) 313.600 GR AMS WAS FOUND AT LOCKER NO.520, BANK OF INDIA, PATPARGANJ, DELHI. SI NCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF SUCH JEWELLERY, THE ASSES SING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.8,93,760/- AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT HE AND HIS WIFE HAVE RECEIVED THE ABOVE JEWELLERY AT THE TIME OF MARRIAG E. IT IS ALSO HIS SUBMISSION THAT SINCE THE ABOVE GOLD JEWELLERY IS L ESS THAN 500 GRAMS, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.19 OF 20 16 AND VARIOUS DECISIONS, NO ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE. I FIND SOME 4 ITA NO.3733/DEL/2017 FORCE IN THE ABOVE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MRS. KOMAL WAZIR VS. DCIT REPORTED IN 120 DTR 353 HAS HELD THAT IN T HE NORMAL COURSE OF HUMAN CONDUCT, ON OCCASIONS SUCH AS MARRIAGE THE PA RENTS AND PARENTS-IN- LAW OF A BRIDE DO NORMALLY GIFT JEWELLERY TO THE BR IDE. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO EXPECT THE BRIDE TO ASK FOR EVIDENCE OF BILLS/INVOI CES TO SUPPORT THE PURCHASE OF THE JEWELLERY. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT INVO CATION OF SECTION 69 IN THESE FACTS IS COMPLETELY UNWARRANTED. THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SATYA NARAIN PATNI REPORTED IN 366 ITR 325 HAS HELD THAT WHERE JEWELLERY FOUND IN POSSESSION OF ASSESSEES F AMILY WAS PERSONAL WEARING OF LADIES AND SAME WAS WITHIN PERMISSIBLE L IMIT STIPULATED BY CBDT CIRCULAR, NO ADDITION WAS TO BE MADE. SINCE IN THE INSTANT CASE, ADMITTEDLY THE JEWELLERY FOUND IN THE LOCKER WAS ON LY 313.600 GRAMS WHICH IS MUCH LESS THAN 500 GRAMS AS PER CBDT CIRCULAR NO .19 OF 2016, THEREFORE, IN MY VIEW, THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD NOT HA VE INSISTED FOR WEALTH TAX RETURN OR BILLS AND VOUCHERS TO EXPLAIN THE SOU RCE OF SUCH INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY AND SHOULD HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ALTHOUGH THE ABOVE CIRCULAR IS FOR NON-SEI ZURE OF GOLD JEWELLERY ETC. ITA NO. 4935 MUM 2018-BABULAL D. MEHTA. 9 HOWEVER, VARIOUS COURTS AND THE CO-ORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE TAKING A LIBERAL VIEW ON THE BASIS OF THIS CIRCULAR AND ARE ALLOWING CREDIT FOR SUCH GOLD/JEWELLERY AS EXPLAINED. IN THIS VIEW OF T HE MATTER, I SET- ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AC CORDINGLY ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 10. CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH AND H ONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND THE FACT OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE IM PUGNED JEWELLERY OF 270 GMS IS MUCH LESS THAN 500 GMS AS PER CBDT CIRCU LAR NO. 19 OF 2016, IN OUR VIEW, THE RATIO OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN H IGH COURT CLEARLY COVERS THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESS EE IN DIRECTING TO DELETE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07/08/2019. SD/- SD/- SHAMIM YAHYA PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 07.08.2019 SK COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR SMC BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER, DY./ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI