ORDER
1.- This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A/ADDL/JCIT(A) Panchkula dated 03.07.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1. On the facts and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”] erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 29,90,701/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. AO”] by denying the deduction claimed under Section 54F of the Act, without properly appreciating the evidence furnished by the Appellant to establish eligibility for the said deduction and without considering the settled legal principles governing the claim.
2. On the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the Appellant was required to establish acquisition of gold ornaments. received at the time of her marriage and held by her as Stridhan till A.Y. 2013-14, overlooking the settled legal position that Stridhan is the absolute property of a woman and no such proof of original acquisition is required, particularly when the possession is not in dispute.
3. On the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the finding that the Appellant ought to have filed a return of income for A.Y. 1993-94 (the year of marriage) and a wealth tax return disclosing the ornaments and gifts received during marriage, despite the fact that such receipts are specifically exempt under Section 56(1)(b) of the Act and outside the ambit of wealth tax provisions.
4. On the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that, being the lawful owner of her Stridhan, the Appellant was fully entitled to dispose of the same in any manner, including its sale, and the proceeds thereof could not be treated as unexplained or taxable in the absence of contrary material.
5. On the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in failing to appreciate that gold ornaments held as Stridhan by a woman constitute a capitalasset, and hence the sale proceeds thereof are eligible for deduction under Section 54F of the Act.
6. On the facts and in law, the lower authorities erred in drawing an adverse presumption against the Appellant solely due to the absence of certain historical records, despite there being no incriminating material to contradict the Appellant’s explanation. Such addition based purely on conjecture and surmise is bad in law and unsustainable.
7. On the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of housing loan interest of Rs. 1,50,000/- and deduction under Section 80C for housing loan repayment of Rs. 71,398/-, without appreciating that the Appellant had fulfilled all the statutory conditions for claiming these deductions and had furnished complete supporting evidence before the lower authorities.
8. The appellant craves, leave to add to alter, modify, revise, or delete any ground (s) in the interest of justice.”
2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is individual, filed her return of income for A.Y. 2013-14on 28.03.2015 declaring income of Rs. 57,140/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. During assessment, the assessing officer noted that assessee has shown income from capital gain and claim exemption under section 54F. On show cause, the assessee explained that assessee has sold gold ornaments and silver utensils for total of Rs. 29,90,701/-. The assessee sold gold ornament worth about 1001.4 gram and silver utensil 13068 gram. The assessee also furnished the bifurcation of different items and date of acquisition of such jewellery, received at the time of marries or on other occasions. The assessee was given show cause notice to establish the receipt and cost in the hands of previous owner. The assessee in her reply reiterated that she was married in 1992 wherein she received gold ornament and silver utensil on various occasions of her marries from her parent, father in law, mother in law and other relatives. All gold and silver items were shown in the capital account and balance sheet as on 31.03.1993. The reply of assessee was not accepted by assessing officer by taking view that assessee has not filed any wealth tax return. The assessing officer treated the entire sale consideration of Rs. 29,90,701/- as income from other sources. Resultantly, the exemption under section 54F was not considered. The assessing officer further noted that assessee is having 50% share in self-occupied residential property held with her husband, Niranjan Mehta. The assessee claimed deduction under section 24 & 80C. The assessee claimed deduction of interest of Rs. 1,50,000/- on housing loan from Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. under the head income from house property. On show cause, the assessee submitted that she has claimed deduction under section 24 & 80C for payment of interest and housing loan from Kotak Mahindra Bank. The bank statement was enclosed. The assessing officer was of the view that assessee is not having regular source of income and repayment of loan and interest is being paid by her husband. The loan is sanctioned in the name of her husband. Assessee’s name is not appearing in the loan sanctioned letter. No Emi is debited from assessee’s bank account. Accordingly, deduction under section 24 of Rs. 1,50,000/- and section 80C of Rs. 71,398/- was not allowed. On appeal, before ld. CIT(A) both the additions were confirmed. Further, aggrieved the assessee has filed present appeal before Tribunal.
3. I have heard the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. Ground no. 1 to 6 relates to denying the deduction under section 54F and treating the receipt of sale of jewellery (capital asset) as income from ‘other sources’. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee was married in 1992. The assessee was having gold and silver articles. Such gold and silver articles were shown in the capital account of assessee. The assessee sold her gold ornaments and silver articles/utensils and earned capital gain. The assessing officer treated the entire sale proceed income from other sources and not allowed exemption under section 54f. The assessee sold her gold and jewellery to Jugraj Kantilal & Co. and Mehta Rupraj Hansraj, copy of purchase voucher by those two persons are placed on record. The assessing officer rejected the claim of assessee only on the ground that assessee failed to prove the ownership of gold ornament, on the ground that such ornaments were not reflected in the return of income or balance sheet and no wealth tax return was filed. Before assessing officer and ld. CIT(A), valuation of gold ornaments was produced, however, sale voucher could not be produced as they were misplaced during the shifting of residence. Now, the assessee has discovered such receipts / vouchers and are being placed before the Hon’ble bench. Such vouchers are essential for appreciation of issue before the Hon’ble bench. The voucher established the possession of gold with the assessee. Therefore, such evidence may be admitted and matter may be adjudicated on the basis of such evidence. The sale proceeds of jewellery and ornament and silver articles may be treated as capital gain and assessee may be allowed deduction under section 54F. To support his view that jewellery items were not unexplained by an exemption who are married more than 30 years back in case of
Ashok Chaddha v.
ITO [2011] 14
taxmann.com 57 (Delhi)/[2011] 202 Taxman 395 (Delhi).
4. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that assessee is not able to specify the name of person who gifted such jeweler items. So far as other deduction under section 24 & 80C is concerned, the assessee has not availed the loan so there is no question for repayment thereon by assessee. So far as deduction under section 54F is concerned, such issue has not been examined by assessing officer. If income from sale proceeds is treated as capital gain, in such eventuality, the assessee will be able to get deduction under section 54F.
5. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. I find that assessee claimed who have sold gold and silver articles of Rs. 29,90,701/-. The assessing officer treated such receipt as other sources. I find that assessing officer treated such receipt as unexplained on the ground that ornaments were not shown in the wealth tax return. I find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Ashok Chaddha v. ITO (supra) held that streedhan of jewellery of about 900 gram in a married life of 25 years is not abnormal. In the present case, we find that the assessee has claimed her gold articles about 1000 gram, the assessee has now furnished the various purchase voucher from Mehta Rupraj Hansraj and Jugraj Kantilal & Co. which were not produced before lower authorities. Thus, considering the relevancy of such evidence, I find that such evidences are relevant for actual determination of issue in hand. Therefore, such additional evidence being relevant is admitted for consideration. Further, considering the fact that such evidence was not available before lower authorities for their verification and consideration thereof. Therefore, such evidence is to be verified at their end. Hence, ground no. 1 to 5 is restored back to the file of jurisdictional assessing officer (JAO) to verify such fact and if such fact is verified, the JAO shall consider the gain on sale of such gold and silver items as capital gain and to consider deduction under section 54F. In case deduction under section 54F is found allowable then verify the fact if such capital gain so earned was invested for acquisition of joint property / residential house with her husband and to reconsider deduction under section 24 & 80C afresh and in accordance with law. In the result, all the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
6. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
