Sunil Ahuja, Dehradun V. DCIT, Central circle, Dehradun

ITA 8348/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9260 (ITAT-DEHRADUN)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-02-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Salary income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 8348/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Sunil Ahuja, C/o Matta Garg & Co., 15, Astley Hall, Dehradun Vs DCIT, Central Circle, Dehradun (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AEEPA0505B Assessee by : Sh. S. K. Matta, CA Revenue by : Smt. Poonam Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 10.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 08.02.2022 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur dated 05.10.2018. 2. The assessee filed return of income on 14.08.2017 declaring total income of Rs.2,61,23,857/-. The assessee derives income from salary, business & profession, capital gain and other sources. A search & seizure operation was conducted in golden Manor Group of cases on 22.07.2015. During the course of search, certain information/documents belonging to the assessee were found. The assessment has been completed on 31.12.2017 assessing the jewellery of weight 339 gms. valued Rs.7,39,300/- out of the total jewellery found of 839.70 gms. 3. The ld. CIT(A) passed order dated 05.10.2018 holding that the assessee could not prove the investment in the said ITA No.8348/Del/2018 Sunil Ahuja 2 jewellery. From the assessment record, we find that the assessee is family consists of the assessee himself, wife Smt. Mohini Ahuja, mother Smt. Anjana Ahuja and the minors children namely, Saanidhya Ahuja and Aaradhya Ahuja. Hence, keeping in view the Instruction No. 1916/1994 of CBDT and the judgments of Hon’ble High court of Allahabad in the case of CIT Vs. G.D. Johri 41 taxmann 295 and the Hon’ble High court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT Vs. S.N. Patni 46 taxmann 440 wherein the jewellery to the extent of 500 gms. for marriage lady and 100 gms. for male member be considered as declared. Hence, taking into consideration, the CBDT circular and the judgments, facts on record, we hold that no addition of jewellery of 339 gms. is called for in the instant case. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 08/02/2022. Sd/- Sd/- (Amit Shukla) (Dr. B. R. R. Kumar) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 08/02/2022 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR