Jewellery can not be held unexplained simply because weight of Gold not stated in Will

Jewellery can not be held unexplained simply because weight of Gold coins was not stated in the Will and only number of gold coins were mentioned

ABCAUS Case Law Citation
ABCAUS 3570 (2022) (01) ITAT

In a recent judgment, ITAT has held that Jewellery can not be held unexplained simply because weight of Gold coins was not stated in the Will and only number of gold coins were mentioned. The appellant assessee was an individual engaged in the business and was also a director in a company. The issue involved in this appeal was retaining of addition by CIT(A) of jewellery/gold as not explained.

While calculating the unexplained jewellary, the Assessing Officer (AO) had allowed credit for 1200 grams as per CBDT Circulars i.e. 500 gms for wife of the assessee, 250 gms for each of the two daughters and 100 gms for son and assessee himself.

The CIT(A) inter alia had not accepted the jewelry and gold coins (Guinee) received as per will of the grandmother simply on the ground that details of weight of Gold coins was not stated in the Will and only number of gold coins were mentioned.

The Tribunal opined that the CIT(A) was not justified in ignoring the fact the Guinee’s has’ standard weight of 8 gms. Therefore, when the will was accepted, simply because weight was not mentioned in the will, the explanation should not have been rejected.

Further, the Tribunal pointed out that even as per CBDT circular more jewelry can be accepted considering the   status of the assessee. 

Accordingly, the Tribunal reversed the finding of CIT(A) and allowed the ground of appeal in favour of the assessee.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• Demand set aside as assessee for period covered had discharged tax liability under SVLDRS
• No addition u/s 68 when there is no fresh receipt of unsecured loans during the year
• Taxes on sales comprising in turnover to be excluded for estimating net profit
• Capital contribution deposited in assessee’s bank not partnership firm – Addition 69A upheld
• Bail granted to a CA accused in a GST evasion of more than 40 crores