CIT vs. Satya Narayan Patni; 366 ITR 325 (Raj):
There
was a search action in the case of the Appellant on 30-06-2004,
wherein, besides other items, gold jewellery weighing 2202.464 gms,
valued at Rs. 10,53,520/- was found. Looking to the status of the
assessee and the statement given during the course of search operation
by various family members and considering the fact that there were four
married ladies in the house including the wife of the assessee, no
jewellery was seized. However, jewellery to the extent of 1600 grams,
was treated as reasonable by the Assessing Officer which had been
received by them at the time of their marriage. The balance jewellery
weighing 602.464 gms, was treated as unexplained in the absence of any
satisfactory explanation from the assessee and the value thereof of Rs.
2,88,176/- was added to the income of the assessee as unexplained
investment u/s. 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) and the
Tribunal deleted the addition.
On appeal by the Revenue, the Rajasthan High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and held as under:
“i)
O n a perusal of Instruction No. 1916 dated 11/05/1994 issued by the
CBDT, it is clear that in the case of a wealth-tax assessee, whatever
gold, jewellery and ornaments have been found and declared in the
wealth-tax return, need not be seized. However, subclause (ii)
prescribes that in the case of a person not assessed to wealth-tax, gold
jewellery and ornaments to the extent of 500 gms. per married lady, 250
gms. per unmarried lady and 100 gms per male member of the family need
not be seized. Sub-clause (iii) also prescribes that the authorised
officer may, having regard to the status of the family, and the customs
and practices of the community to which the family belongs and other
circumstances of the case, decide to exclude larger quantity of
jewellery and ornaments from seizure.
ii) A dmittedly looking to
the status of the family and the jewellery found in the possession of
the four ladies, it was held to be reasonable and therefore, the
authorised officer, in the first instance, did not seize the jewellery
as being within the limit or limits prescribed by the Board and the
subsequent addition was not justifiable on the part of the Assessing
Officer and rightly deleted by both the two appellate authorities.
iii)
T he Tribunal has correctly analysed the circular of the Board and we
do not find any infirmity or perversity in the order of the Tribunal.
The appeal, being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed.”
