Mudita Chaturvedi Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
Summary: ITAT Delhi allowed the appeal of Mudita Chaturvedi and directed deletion of the addition sustained in respect of jewellery found during search. A search and seizure operation under Section 132 was conducted on 12.07.2018 in the Rohit Tiwari Group cases. On operating the assessee’s locker, jewellery weighing 719.916 grams valued at Rs.27,34,231 was found. The assessee explained that the jewellery represented her stridhan received at marriage and on various festive and auspicious occasions from her parents, in-laws and close relatives, and also relied upon CBDT Instruction No. 1916. The AO granted benefit for 500 grams belonging to the assessee and 100 grams each for her husband and minor child, but treated the excess quantity as unexplained investment under Section 69 read with Section 115BBE. The CIT(A) did not accept the explanation and modified the basis of addition while restricting it to the amount added by the AO. The Tribunal considered that the search occurred more than 15 years after the assessee’s marriage, her educational and financial status, her husband’s professional background and her father-in-law’s senior governmental positions. The Department could not controvert the submissions regarding the family status. Considering the facts in totality, the Tribunal held that possession of the disputed gold jewellery could not be ruled out, found no merit in the impugned addition and directed the AO to delete it. The assessee’s appeal was accordingly allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT/ORDER
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-27, New Delhi dated 04.01.2023 pertaining to A.Y. 2019-20.
2. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.635025/- u/s. 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.
3. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Act was conducted by the Investigation Wing on 12.07.2018 in Rohit Tiwari Group of cases.
4. The locker of the assessee at New Delhi Vaults Limited was also covered and on operation of the locker jewellery of 719.916 grams amounting to Rs.27,34,231/- was found. Assessee was asked to explain the source of jewellery of 719.916 grams found in the locker and to show cause as to why the jewellery found should not be taxed as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act.
5. Assessee filed a detailed reply explaining that the jewellery found in the locker is Stri Dhan of the assessee which was received by the assessee at the time of her marriage and at various festive and auspicious occasions from her parents, in laws and other close relatives. Further reliance on the CBDT Instruction No. 1916 was also made.
6. The reply of the assessee did not find any favour with the AO though the AO gave the benefit of CBDT Circular and accepted jewellery of 500 grams belonging to the assessee 100 grams each belonging to her husband and minor child and excess above 700 grams i.e. 19 grams was treated as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE.
7. Assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) and reiterated its claim of Stri Dhan etc.
8. After considering the facts and the submission not only the CIT(A) was not convinced with the explanation but also modified the addition by taking gross weight of jewellery found though restricted the addition to the amount of addition made by the AO.
9. Before us the Counsel for the assessee explained the family background of the assessee and her husband and emphatically stated that being a married lady well employed the assessee was having a status of possession of gold ornaments of 719 grams. The Counsel stated that the assessee has highly reputed good family antecedents and is from well to do financial status.
10. The DR strongly supported the findings of the AO but could not controvert to the submission of family status of the assessee.
11. Fact on record shows that a search and seizure was conducted on 12.07.2018 more than 15 years after the marriage of the assessee. The assessee is not only well educated / qualified but also holding a green card of USA. Her husband is a graduate from Michigan University and worked out at various lead positions including global head of emerging market and equity Finance at Nomura Securities in New York. The father in law of the assessee was a Senior IAS officer and was in service at various Government positions including serving as Chief Information Commissioner of India, Secretary DOPT, Secretary Power, Additional Secretary Urban Development and Secretary to Vice President of India.
12. Considering family background of the assessee possession of 019.91 grams gold jewellery cannot be ruled out.
13. Considering the facts in totality we do not find any merit in the impugned addition we accordingly direct the AO to delete the same.
14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 10.01.2024.
