ITAT Deletes Addition On Excess Gold Belonging To Assessee's Mother

The two-member bench of Duvvuru R.L. Reddy (Judicial Member) and S.Balakrishnan (Accountant Member) has held that in the case of a person who is not assessed for wealth tax, gold jewellery and ornaments to the extent of 500 gramsper a married lady, 250 grams per an unmarried lady, and 100 grams per male member of the family should not be seized.

The appellant/assessee is an individual who derives income from business and remuneration from a partnership firm, M/s. Lifestyle Housing. A search and seizure operation was conducted in the group cases of M/s. Yugandhar Housing Private Limited and others, including the residence of Sri M. Maheswara Reddy, Managing Director of M/s. Yugandhar Housing Pvt. Ltd. The assessee is the wife of Sri M. Maheswara Reddy. A notice was served on the assessee. In response, the assessee filed a return of income. The assessee accepted the income filed by her in response to the notice. Subsequently, notice was issued and served on the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO assessed the income of the assessee, including an amount of Rs. 7,94,372, being the value of gold jewellery weighing 284.600 grams which is found in excess after considering the eligible exemption as per CBDT Instruction No.1916, dated 11/05/1994. The AO assessed the excess gold jewellery under Section 69A. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A).

The CIT(A) observed that none attended the hearing during the appellate proceedings in spite of several opportunities and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

The assessee contended that the gold jewellery belonged to the family members of the assessee of the assessment order. Therefore, the AO has erred in giving effect to the CBDT instruction on the gold jewellery belonging to the mother of the assessee while allowing the gold jewellery belonging to the mother-in-law of the assessee. The mother of the assessee was staying with her daughter, who is the only daughter, and hence the benefit of CBDT Instruction No. 1916 should also be extended to the mother of the assessee.

The department supported the order of the AO but could not controvert the taxing of excess jewellery belonging to the mother of the assessee.

The ITAT quashed the order of the CIT(A) and allowed the appeal of the assessee.

Case Title: Muppavarapu Kavitha, Vijayawada Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: I.T.A. No.91/Viz/2022

Dated: 27/07/2022

Counsel For Appellant: CA MV Prasad

Counsel For Respondent: CIT-DR MN Murthy Naik

Click Here To Read/Download Order