Case Law Details
Kirti Singh Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT held that Indian Women Traditionally Keep Jewelry at Maternal Home for Various Reasons and CBDT instruction, where the status of the family and customs and practices of the community to which family belongs, permit an assessee to hold larger quantity of jewellery and ornaments out of the purview of seizure.
In the case of Kirti Singh vs. ACIT, heard by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi, the issue revolved around the assessment of jewellery found during a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, conducted on November 27, 2020, at the premises of M/s. Shiv Shakti Construction, which included the appellant, Kirti Singh. The jewellery found at her residence and in a locker amounted to Rs. 93,18,090 in total, with a gross weight of 2479.20 grams.
The Assessing Officer (AO) accepted 1300 grams of jewellery as attributable to various family members, including Kirti Singh herself, her husband, mother-in-law, and sons, based on the CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994. However, the remaining jewellery of 1179.10 grams was treated as unexplained. Kirti Singh appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), who upheld the AO’s decision.
Subsequently, Kirti Singh appealed to the ITAT. The crux of her argument was that the AO had failed to consider the traditional practices and customs prevalent in Indian society, where women often keep their jewellery at their maternal home for various reasons. Additionally, she argued that her affluent status, along with the customs and practices of her community, permitted her to hold a larger quantity of jewellery beyond the limits specified in the CBDT instruction.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
