ITAT deletes Addition as Joint Family can possess 850 gms Jewellery, says No Violation of CBDT Instruction [Read Order]
![ITAT deletes Addition as Joint Family can possess 850 gms Jewellery, says No Violation of CBDT Instruction [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/ITAT-Jewellery-Violation-of-CBDT-Instruction-Taxscan.jpg "ITAT deletes Addition as Joint Family can possess 850 gms Jewellery, says No Violation of CBDT Instruction [Read Order]")
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore ruled that when the assessee is living in joint family, gold credit provided by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT(A) as per CBDT instructions should be given for all the members of the joint family. The revenue carried out search and seizure operations on the assesseeAmith Kumar Bethalaon 08-12-2013. During the course of the search,...
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore ruled that when the assessee is living in joint family, gold credit provided by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT(A) as per CBDT instructions should be given for all the members of the joint family.
The revenue carried out search and seizure operations on the assesseeAmith Kumar Bethalaon 08-12-2013. During the course of the search, gold ornaments weighing 7442.30 grams were found, which included a bullion of 1500 grams. The Assessing Officer (AO) assessed the total value at ₹1,73,46,141. Among which the CIT(A) granted relief of Rs.22,27,000/-, being the value of 850 grams. In this regard, credit was given of 500 grams for a married lady (wife of the assessee), 250 grams for an unmarried lady (daughter of the assessee), and 100 grams (for the assessee) by considering the Instruction issued by CBDT for not seizing the jewelry.
The Assessee submitted that his family is carrying on jewelry business and the AO should not have presumed that the family members could not have possessed any jewelry. In any case, the limit of jewelry prescribed in the CBDT instruction is the minimum amount of jewelry that should be left unseized and it does not mean that the entire jewelry found during the course of the search should be considered as unexplained. He submitted that the AO should have made a reasonable estimate of jewelry that should be belonging to each of the family members, by considering the status of the family of the assessee, if he is not accepting the explanations of the assessee.
The Tribunal Bench comprising Judicial Member Smt. Beena Pillai and Accountant Member B.R. Baskaran sided with the Assessee and held, “ . . we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) should have given credit for all the family members (including parents and brother’s family) as per the CBDT instructions. Accordingly, we direct the AO to give credit to the parents and family members of the assessee’s brother also. In case, any jewelry still remains, the AO may consider giving further credit on the basis of the family status of the assessee. With these directions, we modify the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the AO to follow the discussions made supra.”
