JAYASHRI SHRIKANT DESHMUKH,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation regarding the acquisition of the remaining gold and jewellery from HUF agricultural income was plausible. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in treating it as unexplained income.
What were the facts?
During a search operation, the assessee was found in possession of gold and jewellery. While a portion was explained, 107.48 gms were treated as unexplained by the Assessing Officer, who rejected the assessee's explanation of acquisition from HUF agricultural income.
What were the issues?
Whether the explanation offered by the assessee for the acquisition of unexplained gold and jewellery was satisfactory, and if not, whether it could be deemed as income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI
ORDER
PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Pune [‘the CIT(A)’] dated 30.08.2022 for the assessment year 2019-20.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual deriving income under the head “salary”. He is working in CSMSS Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Aurangabad. The Return of Income for the assessment year 2019-20 was filed on 29.07.2019 Rs.11,11,330/-. The search and seizure operations u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) were conducted in the business and residential premises of the appellant on 21.08.2018. During the course of such search and seizure operations, a Locker bearing Locker No.51, SBI, Kanchanwadi, Aurangabad and Locker No.335, IDBI Bank, Samarthnagar, Aurangabad was found in the names of the assessee and her husband, Shri Shrikant Gunwantrao Deshmukh respectively and in the said Locker, Gold and Jewellery of 957.48 gms was found. Out of said gold, jewellery of 957.48 gms, the gold, jewellery of 850 gms was treated as explained by the Assessing Officer in terms of the CBDT Instruction 1961 dated 11.05.1994 and the value of gold, jewellery of 107.48 gms was treated as unexplained rejecting the explanation of the appellant that this gold, jewellery belongs to his HUF which is received on partition of Bigger HUF. It was further explained that the said gold, jewellery was acquired out of the agricultural income on the land belonging to Bigger HUF. 3. Being aggrieved by the above order of assessment, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026