Sh. Ajay Kumar Goyal, Ludhiana V. DCIT, Ludhiana

ITA 721/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 95489 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 19-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJINDER KAUR
• Assessee Lawyers: D K GOYAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.721/CHD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) SH.AJAY KUMAR GOYAL, VS. THE D.C.I.T., 193, TAGORE NAGAR, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: ABFPG0751L AND ITA NO.722/CHD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) SMT.MONIKA GOYAL, VS. THE D.C.I.T., 1108/1A, TAGORE NAGAR, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, CIVIL LINES, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: ABKPG4728L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI D.K.GOYAL RESPONDENT BY : MS.RAJINDER KAUR DATE OF HEARING : 19.08.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.08.2015 O R D E R PER RANO JAIN, A.M . : BOTH THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDER O F LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, LUD HIANA 2 DATED 20.5.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. SINC E THE ISSUES ARE SIMILAR, THESE ARE BEING ADJUDICATED TOG ETHER. 2. FIRSTLY, WE WILL TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE IN ITA NO.721/CHD/2014. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CAS E ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREM ISES AND BANK LOCKER OF THE ASSESSEE, GOLD JEWELLERY WEIGHIN G 1616 GMS IN TOTAL WAS FOUND. ON BEING ASKED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER REGARDING THE SOURCE OF SAID JEWELLERY, THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT 950 GMS OF THE SAID JEWELLERY WAS GIVEN TO HIM BY HIS FATHER AT THE TIME OF HIS MARRIAGE AND AT THE BIRTH OF HIS SON. FURTHER, 650 GMS OF JEWELLERY WAS GIVEN TO HIM BY H IS IN-LAWS AT THE TIME OF HIS WEDDING. AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE F ATHER-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FILED WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION AS REGAR DS 950 GMS OF JEWELLERY, HOWEVER, AS REGARDS THE JEWELLERY REC EIVED FROM HIS PARENTS TO HIS WIFE, HIS VIEW WAS THAT SINCE TH E ASSESSEE HAD FOUR BROTHERS, SUCH LARGE AMOUNT OF JEWELLERY C OULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS GIVEN BY HIS PARENTS TO THEIR DAUGHTE R-IN-LAW. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED JEWELLERY WEIGHING 250 GMS TO BE REASONABLE TO BE GIVEN BY HIS PARENTS TO HIS WIFE. IN THIS WAY, OUT OF THE TOTAL JEWELLERY OF 1 616 GMS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF 120 0 GRAMS, AND REMAINING 416 GMS, HE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED AN D ACCORDINGLY, MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.3,23,900/-. 3 3. THE ASSESSEE WENT INTO APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNE D CIT (APPEALS). THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AS SESSING OFFICER, WERE REITERATED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE WAS MARRIED FOR THE LAST 15 YEARS AND RECEIVING JEW ELLERY FROM PARENTS AND IN-LAWS IS QUITE NORMAL ON THE OCCASION S LIKE MARRIAGE, CHILD BIRTH AND OTHER TRADITIONS. KEEPI NG IN VIEW THE STATUS OF THE FAMILY OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS PR AYED THAT THE WHOLE JEWELLERY AS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH TO BE CO NSIDERED AS EXPLAINED. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASHOK CHADH A VS. ITO (2011) 202 TAXMAN 295. 4. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) DID NOT ACCE PT THE SAID SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HOLDING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE QUITE REASONABLE CONFIR MED THE ADDITION. 5. NOW, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME IN APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. BECAUSE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN LA W & FACTS BY NOT APPRECIATING THE EXPLANATION GIVEN IN THE WRITTE N SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER & THE LD C IT (APPEAL). 2. BECAUSE THE LD CIT (APPEAL) WAS WRONG IN CONFIRM ING THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC- LL, LUDHIANA HOLDING THAT 416 GMS OF JEWELLERY AS BEING UNEXPLAINED EVEN THOUGH EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO EA CH & EVERY GRAM OF JEWELLERY WAS PROVIDED DURING THE ASSES SMENT AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 4 3. BECAUSE THE LD CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY STATED IN HIS ORDER THAT SUFFICIENT ALLOWANCE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF JEWELLERY HELD AND NOT CONSIDERING THE REASONABILITY ACCORDING TO THE SOCIAL STATUS, CUSTO MS AND TRADITIONS OF THE FAMILY OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. BECAUSE THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS OF CIT (APPEAL) IS UNDER CHALLENGE SINCE NOT HAVING APPREC IATED THE FACTS, DOCUMENTS, EVIDENCE, DECISION RELIED & PROVIS ION OF ACT IN ITS TRUE SENSE & SPIRITS. 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, APPEARING BEFORE US AGAIN REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEF ORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN ADDITION, RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE INSTRUCTION NO.1916, DATED 11 TH MAY, 1994, ISSUED BY THE CBDT. 7. THE LEARNED D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS QUIRE CLE AR FROM THE PERUSAL OF RECORD THAT JEWELLERY WEIGHING 1616 GMS WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ASSESSEE GAVE EX PLANATION FOR THE SOURCE OF THE SAME BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE SAME TO THE EXTENT OF 1200 GMS AND MADE ADDITION OF THE VALUE O F REMAINING JEWELLERY BEING 416 GMS. THE SOLE DISPU TE BEFORE US IS REGARDING THIS 416 GMS ONLY. THE LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO GIVE ANY COGENT E XPLANATION FOR THIS 416 GMS. THE ONLY SUBMISSION WAS THAT TH E JEWELLERY WEIGHING 650 GMS WAS RECEIVED BY HIS WIFE FROM HIS PARENTS, 5 WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ACCEPTED REASONABLE TO THE EXTENT OF 250 GMS. THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING FOUR BROTHERS, IT IS NOT P OSSIBLE FOR HIS PARENTS TO GIVE SUCH HUGE JEWELLERY TO HIS WIFE , SEEMS LOGICAL TO US ALSO. STILL THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS GIVEN ASSESSEE THE BENEFIT OF 250 GMS. TO THIS EXTENT, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. HOWEVER, ON PERUSAL OF INSTRUCTION NO.1916, DATED 1 1.5.1994 ISSUED BY CBDT, WE SEE THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS INSTR UCTED NOT TO SEIZE JEWELLERY WEIGHING 100 GMS PER MALE MEMBER OF THE FAMILY. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, A FURTHER BENEFIT OF 100 GMS SHOULD ALSO BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO GIVE ASSESSEE RELIEF TO THE EXTENT OF T HE VALUE OF 100 GMS JEWELLERY OVER AND ABOVE THE RELIEF ALREADY GIVEN BY HIM. 10. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.722/CHD/2014 : 11. THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF THE ABOVE CASE (ITA NO.721/CHD/2014), THE ASSESSES BEIN G RELATED TO THE SAME GROUP. IN THIS CASE, SINCE THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS GIVEN RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF GOLD COINS RECEIVED FROM HER BROTHER AND ALSO AS PER THE INSTR UCTION OF THE CBDT, AS MENTIONED ABOVE. THERE IS NO NEED T O GIVE HER ANY FURTHER RELIEF IN VIEW OF NO COGENT EXPLANATION GIVEN BY 6 THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COU RSE OF HEARING. 12. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN I TA NO.721/CHD/2014 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 722/CHD/2014 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 21 ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2015. SD/- SD/- (H.L.KARWA) (RANO JAIN) VICE PRESIDENT ACOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 21 ST AUGUST, 2015 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH