Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur
Champa Lal Choudhary , Jaipur vs Department Of Income Tax on 13 March, 2015
vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Jh vkj-ih-rksykuh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh Vh-vkj-ehuk] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM & SHRI T.R. MEENA, AM
vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 456/JP/2012
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2008-09
The DCIT cuke Shri Champa Lal
Central Circle- 2 Vs. Choudhary
Jaipur B-423, Pradhan Marg,
Malivya Nagar, Jaipur
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAHPC 9350 J
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by :Shri Dilip Sharma, Addl. CIT .
fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Manish Agarwal, CA
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 11/02/2015
?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 13 /03/2015
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER R.P. TOLANI, JM
This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Central, Jaipur dated 28-02-2012 for the assessment year 2008- 09 wherein the Revenue has raised following ground.
''1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A), Central, Jaipur has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,99/673/- made by the AO on account of unexplained investment in gold and jewellery and silver articles.'' 2 ITA No. 456/JP/2012 DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Shri Champa Lal Choudhary,Jaipur . 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and a search operation u/s 132 of the Act was carried out at the residential and business premises of the assessee on 23-08-2007. The return of income was filed declaring income of Rs. 92,87,380 which included the amount of Rs. 34.00 lacs as admitted by the assessee in the statements recorded during the survey as his undisclosed income towards the investments in acquisition of gold and silvery jewellery and it pertains to his family members. The AO however, made further addition of Rs. 8,99,673/- towards gold and silver jewellery.
2.2 Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein he deleted the addition by observing as under:-
''2.4.1 Now coming to statement, which has been relied on by the AO. From the facts noticed above, it is clear that the appellant surrendered Rs. 40 lakhs considering jewellery reflected in the balance sheet is amounting to around Rs. 12 lakhs. However, this amount is the cost of the jewellery and not the value as on the date of search. Accordingly, the value of this explained jewellery is to be determined as on the date of search, which taken on average basis has been rightly worked out at Rs. 16,43,710/. It is seen that jewellery found during the course of search not only includes jewellery belonging to appellant and his wife and also includes jewellery of son Shri Akash Choudhary, his 3 ITA No. 456/JP/2012 DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Shri Champa Lal Choudhary,Jaipur . wife Smt. Vinita Choudhary, which must have been received by both of them on various social occasions from in-laws and other relatives. However, no further credit can be given in relation to the jewellery given as gift by appellant and his wife because same would be out of the jewellery available with them, which has already been considered. Considering these facts, only 250 gms of jewellery can be considered to be received by Smt. Vinita Choudhary from her parents and other relative (excluding parents-in-laws namely appellant and his wife). 100 gms each of jewellery can be considered as reasonably acquired by two sons namely Akash and Vikash Choudhary considering the customs and usages and the status of the family, as has bee upheld by Rajasthan High Court in the case of Kailash Chand Sharma, 198 CTR 201 and Gujarat High Court in the case of Ratan Lal Vyapari Lal Jain 45 ITR 290. The value of 450 gms of jewellery taken on average basis comes to Rs. 4,80,150/-.Thus the value of explained jewellery comes to Rs. 21,23,860/- leaving unexplained gold jewellery as Rs. 30,97,624/-.
2.4.2 As regards silver articles are concerned, the AO has allowed the deduction of 12.99 kgs silver having cost of Rs. 1,11,927/- as disclosed in the balance sheet of Smt. Renu Choudhary. However, AO has given credit of the cost of silver utensils purchased long back by the appellant's wife as on 31-03-2002. Hence.A.R. has rightly taken the present value on date of search as Rs. 1,84,800/-, leaving 4 ITA No. 456/JP/2012 DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Shri Champa Lal Choudhary,Jaipur . unexplained silver ornaments comes to Rs. 33,23,064/-, whereas appellant has surrendered Rs. 34,00,000/- which has mentioned by AO also. Therefore, no addition is called for and hence addition of Rs.8,99,673/- made by AO is deleted.'' 2.3 Now the Revenue is before us wherein the ld. DR has supported the order of the AO.
2.4 The ld. Counsel for the assessee in reply drew our attention to the statements of the assessee recorded on 23-08-2007 and 20-08-2007 recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act which states that the jewellery found from the assessee's premises consist of the jewellery belonging to his wife, son and daughter-in-law which has been referred by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR of the assessee contends that this finding of the AO that entire jewellery pertaining to the assessee is not a correct finding. The ld. CIT(A) after appreciating CBDT instruction dated 11-05-1994, relying on Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court judgement in the case of CIT vs. Kailash Chand Sharma, 146 Taxman 375 and proper verification of the facts has deleted the addition.
2.5 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. We find from the record that the ld. CIT(A) has 5 ITA No. 456/JP/2012 DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Shri Champa Lal Choudhary,Jaipur . deleted the addition by observing that jewellery in question belongs to the assessee as well as his family members. Thus in view of the CBDT instruction and Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Kailash Chand Sharma (supra), we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A). Thus the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
3.0 In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13/03/2015 .
Sd/- Sd/- ¼Vh-vkj-ehuk½ ¼vkj-ih-rksykuh½ (T.R. Meena) (R.P.Tolani) ys[kk lnL;@ Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 13/03/2015 *Mishra
vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzfs 'kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- DCIT,Central Circle- 2, Jaipur
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Shri Champa Lal Choudhary, Jaipur
3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A).
4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT, Jaipur
5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur
6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No.456/JP/2012) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@ Assistant. Registrar