Case Law Details
Suresh Bansal Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
Basing on the CBDT instruction No 1916 dated 11/5/1994 and while referring to the answer to question No. 10 in the statement of the assessee recorded at the time of search and seizure, Ld. AR submitted that out of the total gold of 590 g, learned Assessing Officer only attributed 1 g with a diamond therein to the possession of the assessee, while giving credit of 500 g to the assessee’s wife and hundred grams to the assessee, the assessee’s possession could be presumed to have been explained up to 600 g and therefore in terms of CBDT instruction No. 1916 no addition could be sustained. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ratan Lal Vyaparilal Lal Jain (2011) 339 ITR 0351.
DR, per contra, submitted that the CBDT instruction No. 1916 covers only in respect of gold but not in respect of diamond and therefore, even if the benefit of such circular is given to the assessee, addition to the extent of worked of the diamond has to be sustained.
In respect of the argument of the Ld. DR in respect of the diamond, Ld. AR submits that in the case of Smt. Satya Bhalla vs. ACIT ITA No. 5714/del/2015 by order dated 30/5/2016 the Tribunal held that when the gold jewellery in which the diamonds were studded has been accepted by the department as the jewellery received at the time of marriage or other occasion, then, it cannot be said that the diamond studded in the said jewellery were out of the undisclosed income of the assessee.
It could be seen from the assessment order that at page No. 3 the learned Assessing Officer himself mentioned that the gold worth Rs. 10,14,418/-is attributable to Smt. Kanta Bansal, wife of the assessee. According to the CBDT instructions in case of a married woman 500 g is the threshold limit and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court said that to such an extent of jewellery, the source shall be presumed to have been explained. In view of this position of law laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ratan Lal (supra) and also the view taken by the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Satya Bhalla (supra) we are of the considered opinion that pursuant to the CBDT instructions, the wife of the assessee is entitled to keep 500 g of jewellery the source of which is a demoted have been explained and, therefore, no addition could be made are sustained. We accordingly allow ground No. 1 and 2 of assessee’s appeal.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
