Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5817 (ITAT-SURAT)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 year(s) 11 month(s) 21 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date
11-02-2020
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
DB
Assessment Year
2013-2014
Appeal Filed On
20-02-2017
Judgement Text
KASTURBEN M PITHAVADIWALA V. DCIT-CC_2 SURAT/ I.T.( S.S.A) NO. 70 TO 72/AHD/2017/A.Y. 11-12 TO 13-14 PAGE 1 OF 8 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-SURAT-BENCH-SU RAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMBER . . /. I.T.SSA NO.70 TO 72/AHD/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 TO 2013-14 SMT. KA S TURBEN M . PITHAVADIWALA , FLAT NO. 1002, SURYA COMPLEX , CITY LIGHT ROAD SURAT 395002 PAN: AHWPB 3830 G V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE2, SURAT APPELLANT / RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY SHRI AKSHAY M . MODI, CA /REVENUE BY SHRI SRINIVAS T. BIDARI, CIT(D.R.) / DATE OF HEARING: 11.02.2020 /PRONOUNCEMENT ON 11.02.2020 /O R D E R PER O. P. MEENA, AM: 1. THE ABOVE THREE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTE D AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 4, SURAT(IN SHORT THE CIT (A)) DATED 18.11.2016 P ERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 TO 2013-14, WHICH IN TURN H AS ARISEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143 (3) R .W.S 153A DATED 12.03.2015 & 27.03.2015 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (I N SHORT THE ACT) BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL C IRCLE -2, SURAT(IN SHORT THE AO). I.T.(S.S.A) NO. 70/AHD/2017/A.Y. 2011-12: BY THE AS SESSEE : KASTURBEN M PITHAVADIWALA V. DCIT-CC_2 SURAT/ I.T.( S.S.A) NO. 70 TO 72/AHD/2017/A.Y. 11-12 TO 13-14 PAGE 2 OF 8 2. GROUND NO. 1 TO 3 ARE AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE BEING PREMI UM PAID ON LIFE INSURANCE POLICY OF RS.19,692 UNDER SECTION 69 C OF THE ACT. 3. FROM THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DED UCTION UNDER SECTION 80C OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF LIP PREM IUM OF RS.19,692 BUT FAILED TO FURNISH COPY OF LIFE INSURANCE POLICY PREMIUM RECEIPTS AND PAYMENT WAS NOT REFLECTED IN BANK ACCOUNT. HENC E, SAME WAS DISALLOWED. 4. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE AO HAS ALL OWED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80C OF THE ACT WERE DISALLO WED PREMIUM PAYMENT UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT. BEING UNEXPLA INED EXPENDITURE, HENCE, THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE AO WAS CONFIRMED. 5. BEING, AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE COPY OF LIC PREMIUM RECEIPT. HOWEVER, THESE RECEIPTS FURNISHED BEFORE T HE AO AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A) APPEAL, WHICH ARE APPEARING AT PAPER BOO K PAGE NO. 12 TO 14. FURTHER, THE PAYMENT OF RS.19,692 WAS MADE ON 0 5.05.2010 BY CASH WHICH IS DULY REFLECTED IN CASH BOOK PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 15. THEREFORE, THE AO AND CIT (A) WERE NOT JUST IFIED IN DISALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE/ CLAIM. KASTURBEN M PITHAVADIWALA V. DCIT-CC_2 SURAT/ I.T.( S.S.A) NO. 70 TO 72/AHD/2017/A.Y. 11-12 TO 13-14 PAGE 3 OF 8 6. PER CONTRA , THE LD. SR. D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS D ULY FILED THREE LIC PREMIUM RECEIPT OF PAYMENT WHICH ARE APPEARING AT P APER BOOK PAGE NO. 12 TO 14 AND SAME IS ALSO SHOWN PAID IN CASH AN D REFLECTED IN CASH BOOK PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 15. IN VIEW OF T HIS MATTER, THE DISALLOWANCE SO MADE IS UNCALLED FOR, HENCE, SAME I S DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THUS, GROUND NO. 1 TO 3 OF APPEAL ARE ALLO WED. I.T.(S.S.A) NO. 71/AHD/2017/A.Y. 2012-13/BY THE ASS ESSEE: 8. GROUND NO. 1 TO 3 ARE AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE BEING LIFE INSURANCE POLICY PREMIUM OF RS. 39,384 UNDER SECTION 69C OF T HE ACT. 9. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTIO N UNDER SECTION 80C OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF LIP PREMIUM OF RS.39,384, BUT FAILED TO FURNISH COPY OF LIFE INSURANCE POLICY PRE MIUM RECEIPTS AND PAYMENT WAS NOT REFLECTED IN BANK ACCOUNT. HENCE, S AME WAS DISALLOWED. 10. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE AO HAS ALL OWED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80C OF THE ACT WERE DISALLO WED PREMIUM KASTURBEN M PITHAVADIWALA V. DCIT-CC_2 SURAT/ I.T.( S.S.A) NO. 70 TO 72/AHD/2017/A.Y. 11-12 TO 13-14 PAGE 4 OF 8 PAYMENT UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT BEING UNEXPLAI NED EXPENDITURE, HENCE, THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE AO WAS CONFIRMED. 11. BEING, AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM, AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE COPY OF A LIFE INSURANCE POLICY PREMIUM RECEIPT. HOWEVER, THESE RECEIPTS WER E FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A), WHICH ARE APPE ARING AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NO.13 TO 18. FURTHER, THE PAYMENT OF LIP PREMIUM IS DULY ENTERED IN CASH BOOK (PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 25) AND M ADE OM 23.03.2012 BY CASH OUT OF CASH IN HAND. THEREFORE, THE AO AND CIT (A) WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE EXPENDITU RE/ CLAIM. 12. PER CONTRA, THE LD. SR. D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDERS O F LOWER AUTHORITIES. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS D ULY FILED SIX LIC PREMIUM RECEIPT OF PAYMENT WHICH ARE REFLECTED AT P APER BOOK PAGE NO. 13 TO 18 AND SAME IS ALSO SHOWN IN CASH BOOK PL ACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NO.19 TO 25. IN VIEW OF THIS MATTER, THE DISALLOWANCE SO MADE BY THE AO IS UNCALLED FOR, HENCE, SAME IS DIRE CTED TO BE DELETED. THUS, GROUND NO. 1 TO 3 OF APPEAL ARE ALLO WED. I.T.(S.S.A) NO. 72/AHD/2017/A.Y. 2013-14/ BY THE AS SESSEE: KASTURBEN M PITHAVADIWALA V. DCIT-CC_2 SURAT/ I.T.( S.S.A) NO. 70 TO 72/AHD/2017/A.Y. 11-12 TO 13-14 PAGE 5 OF 8 14. GROUND NO. 1 TO 3 RELATES TO CONFIRMATION OF ADDITI ON OF RS. 1,00,000 BEING UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY. 15. THE AO NOTED THAT GOLD JEWELLERY OF RS.8,51,390 AND DIAMOND JEWELLERY WORTH RS.3, 40,134 IS CLAIMED TO BELONGIN G TO THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY WAS FIND DURING SEARCH. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY BILLS RELATED WITH DIAMOND JEWELLERY. FURTHER, EVIDENCES OF SOURCE FOR PURCHASE OF SAID DIAMONDS JEWELLERY ARE ALSO NOT FURNISHED. DUE TO NON-FURNISHING OF THESE DETAILS, CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT THE SAME COME WITHIN THE INSTRUCTIONNO.1916 CANNOT BE A CCEPTED. HENCE, THE NATURE OF SAID DIAMONDS JEWELLERY WOULD BE UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE, HENCE, SAME WAS ADDED UNDER SECTION 69 A OF THE ACT. 16. BEING, AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFO RE THE LD. CIT (A). HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE TOTAL GOLD JEWELLERY OF 762.600 GRAMS AND DIAMOND JEWELLERY OF 7.65 CARATS WERE FOUND DURING SEARCH, BUT NO ORNAMENTS WERE SEI ZED. THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON CBDT INSTRUCTION NUMBER 1916 DATED 11. 05. 1914 AND VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE COURTS TO SAY THA T THE GOLD JEWELLERY AND ORNAMENTS COMMENSURATE WITH THE STATU S OF THE FAMILY SHOULD BE TREATED AS EXPLAINED. THE ASSESSEE HAS PR ODUCE BILLS OF PURCHASE OF GOODS WORTH RS.2 LACS IN A.Y. 2007-08. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE TOTAL JEWELLERY FOUND BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS AROUND 320 KASTURBEN M PITHAVADIWALA V. DCIT-CC_2 SURAT/ I.T.( S.S.A) NO. 70 TO 72/AHD/2017/A.Y. 11-12 TO 13-14 PAGE 6 OF 8 GRAMS. BESIDES, THERE WAS DIAMOND STUDDED JEWELLERY OF TOTAL VALUE OF RS.1,46, 240. THE GOLD JEWELLERY IS HELD TO BE E XPLAINED LOOKING TO THE STATUS OF THE FAMILY. THEREFORE, LOOKING TO TOT ALITY OF FACT GOLD JEWELLERY OF RS. 2,40,134 WAS HELD AS EXPLAINED AND BALANCE JEWELLERY OF RS.1,00,000 WAS CONFIRMED AS UNEXPLAINED. 17. BEING, AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT TOTAL GOLD AND DIAMOND JEWELLERY OF WEIGHING 321 GRAMS AL ONG WITH DIAMOND JEWELLERY BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS FOU ND AS PER INVENTORY MADE WHICH IS PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE N O. 21. THE ASSESSEE BEING A MARRIED LADY MEMBER, HENCE, JEWELL ERY UP TO 500 GRAMS IS TO BE TREATED AS EXPLAINED AS PER CBDT INS TRUCTION NO. 1916 DATED 11.05.1994, WHICH IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE JU DGEMENTS OF VARIOUS COURTS INCLUDING JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJAR AT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RATANLAL VYAPARILAL JAIN [2010] 235 CTR (GUJARAT) 568. HENCE, CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMIN G ADDITION OF RS. 1 LAKH ON THIS SCORE. 18. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF TH E LOWER AUTHORITIES. 19. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT TOTAL GOLD JEWELLE RY WITH DIAMOND KASTURBEN M PITHAVADIWALA V. DCIT-CC_2 SURAT/ I.T.( S.S.A) NO. 70 TO 72/AHD/2017/A.Y. 11-12 TO 13-14 PAGE 7 OF 8 STUDDED THEREIN OF 321 GRAMS WERE FOUND AS PER INVE NTORY MADE DURING SEARCH BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE, COPY OF W HICH IS PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 21. NOTHING WAS SEIZED DURING S EARCH. AS PER CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 1916 DATED 11.05.1994, JEWELLE RY OF 500 GRAMS IN THE CASE OF MARRIED LADY MEMBER NEED NOT BE SEIZ ED. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RATANLAL V YAPARI (SUPRA) OBSERVED THAT CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 1916 LAID DOWN G UIDELINES FOR SEIZURE OF JEWELLERY IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE QUANTITY OF JEWELLERY WHICH SHOULD BE GENERALLY BE HELD BY THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF AN ASSESSEE, AND, THEREFORE, UNLESS ANY THING CONTRARY IS SHOWN , IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE SOURCE T O THE EXTENT OF THE JEWELLERY STATED IN THE CIRCULAR STANDS EXPLAIN ED. WE FIND THAT THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY 321 GRAMS OF JEWELLERY BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND, WHICH IS LESS THAN 500 G RAMS AND SAME IS INCLUSIVE DIAMOND STUDDED THEREIN. FURTHER, THE ASS ESSEE HAS FILED BILLS FOR PURCHASE OF GOLD OF RS. 2 LAKHS AND SHOWN DIAMOND JEWELLERY OF RS. 2,07,875 IN THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE RELEV ANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED I N CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,00.000 ON ACCOUNT OF DIAMOND JEWEL LERY. IN VIEW OF KASTURBEN M PITHAVADIWALA V. DCIT-CC_2 SURAT/ I.T.( S.S.A) NO. 70 TO 72/AHD/2017/A.Y. 11-12 TO 13-14 PAGE 8 OF 8 THIS MATTER, THE SAME IS DELETED. ACCORDING GROUND NO. 1 TO 3 OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 20. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. 21. IN SUM UP APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011- 12, 2012-13 AND 2013-14 ARE ALLOWED. 22. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11.02.202 0. SD/- SD/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (O .P.MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SURAT: DATED: 11 TH FEBRUARY, 2020/OPM COPY OF ORDER SENT TO- ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A) / ITAT (DR)/ GUARD FILE OF ITAT. BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, SURAT
