SANJEEV KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC- 1(2), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

ITA No. 4841/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2023-24

Sanjeev Kumar, Parshva Deputy Commissioner of Income Arcade, No.3023 and 3039, 1st Tax CC-1(2), Central Building, and 2nd Floor, 5th Main, 15th Vs. Mumbai – 400020, Maharashtra. Cross, Bangalore South, Bangalore, B Sk II Stage S.O, 560070, Karnataka, India, Bangalore. PAN NO. AAYPK 8601 R Appellant Respondent

Assessee by : Shri Mani Jain, CA

Revenue by : Shri Basavaraj Hiremath – CIT DR.

: 24/07/2026 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 10/08/2026 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 24/02/2026, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income- Tax (Appeals)- 47, Mumbai [in short the Ld. CIT(A)] for Assessment Year (in short ‘A.Y’), 2023-24, raising the following grounds: -

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the ld. AO in considering the cash found during the search as unexplained money, for the reason stated in the impugned order and otherwise.

Sanjeev Kumar 2 ITA No. 4841/MUM/2026

2.1 During the course of the search, cash amounting to Rs.81,50,000/- was found at the residential premises of the assessee. The Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain the nature and source thereof. According to the Assessing Officer, no satisfactory explanation regarding the source of the cash had been furnished either during the search proceedings or in the post-search

Sanjeev Kumar 3 ITA No. 4841/MUM/2026

proceedings. In the assessment proceedings also, the assessee explained that the cash represented accumulated savings of the family over a period of years, together with cash gifts received on various family, social and religious occasions. The assessee further submitted that the said cash was kept at the residential premises for household needs and family exigencies considering the ailing father and mother. The said contention was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. According to the Assessing Officer, it was unreasonable practice to keep such a high amount of cash at the residence when the assessee claimed that the cash was out of past savings. He further observed that keeping some amount of cash at the residence for emergencies or medical needs was acceptable, but the assessee had not justified keeping an amount of more than Rs.80 lakhs at his residence. The explanation regarding source of cash was not accepted by the Assessing Officer, who observed that no cash-flow statement, bank statement, withdrawal details or other contemporaneous evidence had been furnished to establish the availability of such cash. He accordingly treated Rs.80,00,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act.

2.2 During the course of the same search, jewellery was also found at the residential premises as well as in a bank locker maintained with Lakshmi Vilas Bank belonging to the assessee and his father. The total jewellery found weighed 2,803.29 grams, comprising 1,143.94 grams found at the residential premises and 1,659.35

Sanjeev Kumar 4 ITA No. 4841/MUM/2026

grams in the locker. Out of the total jewellery, 1,702.26 grams was returned, whereas jewellery weighing 1,101.03 grams, valued at Rs.60,23,113/-, was seized in view of no explanation provided by the assessee during the search and post-search proceedings in relation to the source of the Jewellery. As regards the jewellary found, the assessee provided the details of the jewellary. For ready reference, the said details reproduced by the Assessing Officer are extracted as under:-

Sr. In Case of Location Weight of Weight of Weight of No. Jewellery Jewellery Jewellery Found (Net Returned Seized in Grams) (Net in (Net in Grams) Grams) 1 Sanjeev Kumar No. 29/13, 33 A 1143.94 1143.94 - Annexure J Cross, 149 Main, 44 T Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru-560041. 2 Sanjeev Kumar Locker No. 5, Laxmi 1101.03 - 1101.03 & Deepchand Vilas Bank (Now Bhandari DBS Bank), 4 Block, (Annexure J-1) Jayanagar, Bengalure 3 Sanjeev Kumar Locker No.5, Laxmi 558.32 558.32 - & Deepchand Vilas Bank (Now Bhandari DBS Bank), 4th (Annexure J-2) Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru

TOTAL 2,803.29 1702.26 1101.03

2.3 During the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that he was residing in a family consisting of 10 members, and therefore the jewellary did not belong solely to the assessee but was the cumulative holding of all family members residing at one place. It was submitted that the jewellary had been accumulated over

Sanjeev Kumar 5 ITA No. 4841/MUM/2026

several years and included ornaments received by family members on marriages, childbirths, anniversaries and other customary occasions as Streedhan , including the marriage of his son, which had taken place prior to the date of search. The assessee submitted that at the time of the said marriage, they received jewellary from the in-laws as marriage gifts. He also referred to few ounces in the gold belonging to his unmarried daughter, Ms. Isha Bhandari, who was also gifted jewellary at the time of her birth. It was further submitted that some of the jewellery had been broken, remade or exchanged from time to time and that, for security reasons, a portion thereof had been kept in the bank locker. The assessee also relied upon CBDT Instruction No.1916 dated 11.05.1994 and contended that, having regard to the number and gender of the family members, the jewellery falling within the quantities specified in the said Instruction aggregated to approximately 2,900 grams. Since the total jewellery found was only 2,803.29 grams, it was contended that the entire jewellery stood explained.

2.4 The Assessing Officer, however, was not convinced. He observed that during the course of the search action, the assessee was unable to support the jewellary found at his residence and locker. He further observed that in view of the CBDT Instruction (supra), during the course of search , the assessee explained that jewellary to the extent of 1,700 grams may not be seized and agreed that balance jewellary of 1103.29 grams which was over and above 1700 grams might be

Sanjeev Kumar 6 ITA No. 4841/MUM/2026

seized. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated the jewellary in excess of 1,700 grams, i.e., 1,103.29 grams, which was valued at Rs.60,23,113/- and held the same as unexplained jewellary under Section 69A of the Act.

Sr. Name of AY 2020- AY 2021- AY 2022-23 Address as per Adhar Card No. Family 21 22 Member 1 Late Shri 91,34,130 47,74,640 63,04,570 #29/13, 33rd A Cross, 14th Deepchand Main, 4th T Block Jayanagar, Bhandari Bangalore South, Bangalore, (Father) Karnataka - 560041 2 Champa Bai 63,94,030 71,17,350 67,28,980 #29/13, 33rd A Cross, 14th (Mother) Main, 4th T Block Jayanagar, Bangalore South, Bangalore, Karnataka - 560041 3 Sanjeev 1,54,33,150 1,37,09,360 1,46,88,990 #29/13, 33rd A Cross, 14th Kumar Main, 4th T Block Jayanagar, Bhandari Bangalore South, Bangalore, (Self) Karnataka - 560041 4 Meena 21,97,990 25,47,800 18,35,470 #29/13, 33rd A Cross, 14th Bhandari Main, 4th T Block Jayanagar, (Wife) Bangalore South, Bangalore, Karnataka - 560041

Sanjeev Kumar 7 ITA No. 4841/MUM/2026

5 Omprakash 1,18,00,450 91,13,490 55,48,610 #29/13, 33rd A Cross, 14th Bhandari Main, 4th T Block Jayanagar, (Brother) Bangalore South, Bangalore, Karnataka - 560041 6 Pushpa 19,87,360 22,03,830 17,16,210 #29/13, 33rd A Cross, 14th Bhandari Main, 4th T Block Jayanagar, (Brother's Bangalore South, Bangalore, wife) Karnataka - 560041 7 Rohan 62,98,790 63,73,010 66,34,820 #29/13, 33rd A Cross, 14th Bhandari Main, 4th T Block Jayanagar, Bangalore South, Bangalore, Karnataka - 560041 8 Richa 5,11,570 17,65,160 24,93,920 #29/13, 33rd A Cross, 14th Bhandari Main, 4th T Block Jayanagar, Bangalore South, Bangalore, Karnataka - 560041 9 Esha 4,13,880 8,50,790 5,08,770 #29/13, 33rd A Cross, 14th Bhandari Main, 4th T Block Jayanagar, Bangalore South, Bangalore, Karnataka - 560041 Total 5,41,71,350 4,84,55,430 4,64,60,340

3.1 The learned CIT(A), however, found the explanation to be general and unsubstantiated. He observed that the assessee had neither furnished a year-wise cash accumulation statement nor established the corresponding withdrawals from bank accounts or any other contemporaneous material linking the disclosed income of the family members with the cash actually found during the search. In his view, disclosed income could establish earning capacity but could not, by itself, establish availability of the corresponding amount in cash.

3.2 The learned CIT(A) further placed considerable emphasis on the variation in the family composition stated at different stages of the proceedings. According to him, while the assessee had stated during the search, in his statement recorded on oath, that six members

Sanjeev Kumar 8 ITA No. 4841/MUM/2026

constituted the family residing with him, a larger family comprising ten members was subsequently claimed during the appellate proceedings. The learned CIT(A) regarded this change in stand as materially affecting the credibility of the explanation that the seized cash represented common family savings. He also noted that the cash was found in the custody of the assessee and that no family-wise allocation or contribution towards the cash had been established. On these considerations, he held that the assessee had failed to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of the cash within the meaning of section 69A and confirmed the addition of Rs.80,00,000/- , observing as under:-

9.9 It is pertinent to note that there is a material inconsistency in the stand taken by the appellant during different stages of proceedings. During the course of the search, while recording the statement on oath, the appellant had categorically stated that there were only six members residing in his family, including himself. However, during the appellate proceedings, the appellant has furnished a detailed tabulation reflecting ten family members as forming part of the same household. No satisfactory explanation has been offered for this significant variation in the number of family members allegedly residing together. The expansion of family composition at the appellate stage raises serious doubts regarding the veracity of the claim of joint family accumulation of cash. Such inconsistency strikes at the root of the explanation offered and materially weakens the appellant's contention that the seized cash represented collective household savings. The shifting stand, therefore, cannot be ignored and adversely affects the credibility of the appellant's explanation under section 69A of the Act. 3.3 As regards the jewellery, the assessee contended before the learned CIT(A) that the jewellery belonged collectively to the family and had been accumulated over the years through marriages, childbirth, anniversaries and other customary occasions, including Streedhan of the female members. The assessee further submitted that part of the jewellery had been reshaped, remade or exchanged

Sanjeev Kumar 9 ITA No. 4841/MUM/2026

over generations and that for safety reasons certain items were kept in the bank locker. Reliance was placed upon CBDT Instruction No.1916 dated 11.05.1994. Applying the quantities specified therein to ten family members, the assessee claimed that jewellery up to 2,900 grams stood covered, whereas the total jewellery found during the search was only 2,803.29 grams . A chart thereof is reproduced as under:-

Sr. Name Gender Allowable Qty. No. 1 Deepchand Bhandari Male 100 grams 2 Champa Bai Female 500 grams 3 Sanjeev Kumar Bhandari Male 100 Grams 4. Meena Bhandari Female 500 grams 5. Omprakash Bhandari Male 100 grams 6. Pushpa Bhandari Female 500 grams 7. Rohan Bhandari Male 100 grams 8. Richa Bhandari Female 500 grams 9. Esha Bhandari Female 250 grams 10. Nivisha Bhandari Female 250 grams Total 2900 grams

3.4 It was accordingly contended that the entire jewellery was explained. The assessee also furnished additional documents, including address-related and other documents, to support the claim that the family members were residing together at the searched premises.

3.5 The learned CIT(A), however, did not accept the enlarged claim. He noted that, during the the statement recorded on oath u/s 132(4), the assessee categorically admitted that only six family members including himself, were residing together, whereas the subsequent

Sanjeev Kumar 10 ITA No. 4841/MUM/2026

claim before the appellate authorities enlarged the family to ten members. The learned CIT(A) considered this material variation significant, particularly because the four additional members—Shri Rohan Bhandari, Smt. Richa Bhandari, Shri Omprakash Bhandari and Smt. Pushpa Bhandari—had not been identified during the search as members of the household residing at the searched premises. He consequently held that the subsequent claim for 2,900 grams lacked a satisfactory factual foundation.

3.6 The learned CIT(A) further observed that the Assessing Officer had already allowed approximately 1,700 grams of jewellery on the basis of the family composition stated during the search. According to him, the subsequent claim for enhancement to 2,900 grams rested entirely upon the inclusion of the four additional family members, whose joint residence had not been established during the search. He therefore held that the benefit already extended in respect of approximately 1,700 grams was adequate and that no further benefit under CBDT Instruction No.1916 could be granted.

3.7 The learned CIT(A) also observed that the assessee's explanation regarding Streedhan, customary gifts and reshaping or remaking of jewellery, though not inherently implausible, was not supported by any family-wise identification or other corroborative material establishing acquisition and ownership of the jewellery. He further noted the absence of purchase bills, inheritance records or similar material evidencing acquisition over the years. According to the

Sanjeev Kumar 11 ITA No. 4841/MUM/2026

learned CIT(A), the subsequent submissions did not cure the evidentiary deficiencies noticed by the Assessing Officer and the shifting stand regarding the family composition materially weakened the explanation.

3.8 In the ultimate analysis, the learned CIT(A) held that the jewellery weighing approximately 1,700 grams already stood adequately covered by the benefit allowed during the search, whereas the balance jewellery weighing 1,101.03 grams, valued at Rs.60,23,113/- , remained unexplained under section 69A. He accordingly confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee.

Sanjeev Kumar 12 ITA No. 4841/MUM/2026

members for the three years was stated to be Rs.5,41,71,350/-, Rs.4,84,55,430/- and Rs.4,64,60,340/-, respectively.

4.1 It was further submitted that, having regard to the financial status of the family and the nature of its social and family activities, retention of cash at home for household requirements, medical contingencies and other exigencies was not unusual. According to the learned counsel, the cash had accumulated gradually and was not the result of any sudden or unexplained generation of income. It was also submitted that the fact that the cash was physically found at the residence of the assessee could not lead to the conclusion that the entire cash belonged exclusively to him.

4.2 The assessee further submitted that, apart from accumulated savings, the family had received cash gifts on various occasions. Particular reliance was placed upon the marriage of Shri Rohan Bhandari held on 22.04.2019, in connection with which the family was stated to have received cash gifts of approximately Rs.25 lakhs. It was also submitted that the family received cash gifts of approximately Rs.10 lakhs per annum during the relevant period on festivals and other occasions. Considering family background, the family functions conducted by the assessee family at their residence attract invitees who are the cream of the society. Such invitees often give gifts in cash on several occasion which are considerable in quantum. Further, an amount of approximately Rs.15 lakhs was stated to have been received when Smt. Esha Bhandari and Shri

Sanjeev Kumar 13 ITA No. 4841/MUM/2026

Rohan Bhandari completed the 44-day Jain Siddhi Tap in August 2022.

4.3 On this basis, it was argued that the cash found during the search represented the savings of several members of a financially sound family and could not reasonably be treated as unexplained merely for want of a one-to-one correlation between each historical receipt and the cash found on the date of search. It was submitted that the explanation was required to be examined in the backdrop of the overall financial position and social circumstances of the family.

4.4 As regards the jewellery, the learned counsel submitted that the jewellery represented the cumulative holding of the family and could not be attributed exclusively to the assessee. It was submitted that a substantial part of the jewellery constituted Streedhan of the female members and had been received on marriage, birth of children, anniversaries and other customary occasions. The jewellery had also been periodically remade or exchanged into different ornaments and had been kept in the bank locker for security reasons.

4.5 The learned counsel placed particular reliance upon CBDT Instruction No.1916 dated 11.05.1994. It was submitted that, applying the quantities indicated in the Instruction to the members of the family, the permissible quantity worked out to 2,900 grams, whereas only 2,803.29 grams was found during the search. The

Sanjeev Kumar 14 ITA No. 4841/MUM/2026

assessee therefore contended that no jewellery could validly be regarded as unexplained.

4.6 It was further submitted that the family consisted of several members residing at the same address and that documentary material, including Aadhaar cards and other documents, had been furnished to substantiate the claim regarding their residence. The learned counsel accordingly submitted that the benefit of the jewellery attributable to all such members ought to be considered while examining the explanation under section 69A.

5.1 It was further submitted that no year-wise cash accumulation statement, cash-flow statement, corresponding bank withdrawals or other contemporaneous material had been furnished to establish the availability of Rs.80 lakhs as accumulated family savings. Similarly, the alleged cash gifts received on marriage, festivals and religious

Sanjeev Kumar 15 ITA No. 4841/MUM/2026

occasions were not supported by any material establishing the actual receipt and subsequent retention of such amounts. The Revenue accordingly contended that the explanation remained general and incapable of verification.

5.2 The learned Departmental Representative also drew attention to the inconsistency in the assessee's explanation regarding the composition of the family. It was submitted that, in the statement recorded during the course of search, the assessee had referred to a smaller number of family members residing with him, whereas subsequently, during the appellate proceedings, additional persons were brought within the family unit for the purpose of explaining the cash and jewellery. According to the Revenue, the subsequent expansion of the family composition could not, without establishing actual residence and contribution, be used to explain assets found in the possession of the assessee.

5.3 In respect of jewellery, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that CBDT Instruction No.1916 was concerned with the circumstances in which jewellery ordinarily need not be seized during a search and could not be construed as a statutory presumption that jewellery within the specified limits necessarily had an explained source. It was submitted that the assessee was still required to establish ownership and source of acquisition of the jewellery for purposes of section 69A. Since the assessee had failed to establish that the additional family members relied upon by him were actually

Sanjeev Kumar 16 ITA No. 4841/MUM/2026

residing at the searched premises and that the jewellery could be attributed to them, the benefit of the larger quantity claimed under the Instruction was rightly denied.

Unexplained cash

Sanjeev Kumar 17 ITA No. 4841/MUM/2026

submitted that the family was accustomed to retaining cash at home for household, medical and other contingencies and that, having regard to the financial status and income of the family, retention of Rs.80 lakhs in cash could not be regarded as inherently improbable. These submissions have been elaborated before us by furnishing details of the returned income of the various family members.

7.1 There is no quarrel with the proposition that the mere fact that cash is found in the course of a search does not, by itself, render such cash unexplained. Equally, the mere quantum of cash cannot be the sole determinative factor. The statutory enquiry under section 69A, however, does not end with the demonstration that the assessee or his family members possessed sufficient earning capacity. The material question is whether the assessee has satisfactorily established the nature and source of acquisition of the very money found. Thus, there must be a reasonable nexus between the explanation furnished and the particular asset or money found in possession.

7.2 In the present case, the explanation rests principally upon three assertions: first, that the cash represented accumulated savings of the family over several years; secondly, that the family members had sufficient disclosed income; and thirdly, that substantial cash gifts had been received on marriages, festivals and religious occasions. The assessee has, in support of the second assertion, furnished the particulars of returned income of the family members. The figures do

Sanjeev Kumar 18 ITA No. 4841/MUM/2026

demonstrate that certain members of the family had substantial taxable income in the relevant years. The aggregate income reflected in the tabulation is also not insignificant. The difficulty, however, lies in the further step which the assessee seeks us to take. The existence of substantial disclosed income establishes capacity to generate savings, but does not, without more, establish that such income was in fact accumulated in cash and continued to remain available in that form until the date of search. No year-wise statement of cash accumulation has been furnished. No cash-flow statement has been prepared to demonstrate the opening cash balance, withdrawals, household expenditure, cash gifts and closing cash balance of the family. Equally, no material has been placed to correlate the alleged accumulated savings with the cash of Rs.80 lakhs actually found during the search. The evidentiary gap between income earned and cash available thus remains unbridged.

7.3 The same deficiency is noticed in respect of the alleged cash gifts. The assessee has referred to the marriage of his son held on 22.04.2019 and has estimated cash gifts received on that occasion at Rs.25 lakhs. He has further referred to cash gifts allegedly received on festivals and other occasions and to an amount of Rs.15 lakhs allegedly received in connection with the completion of the 44-day Jain Siddhi Tap by members of the family. These assertions may explain the possibility of receipt of gifts in a broad sense; but the record does not contain contemporaneous evidence establishing the

Sanjeev Kumar 19 ITA No. 4841/MUM/2026

actual receipt of the stated amounts, the persons from whom such amounts were received, or their subsequent retention as part of the cash found during search.

7.4 We also find considerable force in the objection relating to the composition of the family. The explanation placed before the lower authorities proceeds on the footing that a larger number of family members were residing at the searched premises. However, the statement recorded during the search does not support the same factual position. The assessee's statement during search referred to a substantially smaller family unit, whereas, at the appellate stage, the explanation was enlarged to include additional members, including the brother of the assessee and his wife. The latter were not identified as members residing with the assessee in the statement recorded under section 132(4).

7.5 We are conscious that an address appearing in an Aadhaar card or other document may constitute relevant evidence of residence or may be address for communication. But the mere commonality of address in Adhar Card cannot, by itself, establish actual residence and, still less, establish that the cash found at the searched premises represented the accumulated savings of each of such persons. The assessee has not brought on record material showing that the additional family members were actually residing at the premises searched, maintaining their belongings there, or contributing any specified amount towards the cash allegedly held jointly by the

Sanjeev Kumar 20 ITA No. 4841/MUM/2026

family. In the absence of such evidence, their disclosed income cannot simply be telescoped into the cash found with the assessee.

7.6 The explanation based on household expenditure also does not advance the assessee's case. The assessee has stated that the family received cash gifts of approximately Rs.10 lakhs per annum during the relevant period and incurred about Rs.8 lakhs towards household expenditure, leaving the balance as savings. Yet, no cash-flow statement has been furnished demonstrating the movement of these amounts. The same is true of the expenditure incurred on marriage and religious functions. Where the receipt of cash is relied upon as a source of accumulation, the corresponding expenditure necessarily forms part of the financial picture. Without placing the receipts and expenditure in a coherent cash-flow statement, an estimated figure of accumulated cash cannot satisfactorily explain the specific cash found during search.

7.7 We are, therefore, unable to accept the proposition that the figures of returned income, standing alone, constitute sufficient explanation of the cash found. They establish financial capacity, but not actual availability of the impugned cash. Likewise, the broad reference to customary cash gifts establishes, at best, a possibility of receipt; it does not establish the quantum actually received and retained. Section 69A requires the explanation to travel beyond possibility and probability and to satisfactorily account for the nature and source of the money found.

Sanjeev Kumar 21 ITA No. 4841/MUM/2026

7.8 On a cumulative consideration of the facts, therefore, the explanation furnished by the assessee does not satisfactorily establish the source of the cash of Rs.80,00,000/- treated as unexplained. The shifting stand regarding the number of family members weakens the explanation that the cash constituted a common family pool. We accordingly hold that the assessee has failed to discharge the burden cast upon him under section 69A of the Act. The addition of Rs.80,00,000/- is, therefore, sustained. The grounds related to addition of cash are accordingly dismissed.

8.1 The assessee’s explanation is that the jewellery represented the collective jewellery of the family and had been accumulated over a period of years on account of marriages, childbirth, anniversaries and other customary occasions. It was also submitted that part of the jewellery constituted Streedhan of the female members and that certain ornaments had been broken, remade or exchanged from time to time. For reasons of security, part of the jewellery was kept in the bank locker.

Sanjeev Kumar 22 ITA No. 4841/MUM/2026

8.2. The assessee has principally relied upon CBDT Instruction No.1916 dated 11.05.1994 and contended that, if the members of the family are taken into account, the permissible quantity under the Instruction would aggregate to 2,900 grams, whereas only 2,803.29 grams was found. The contention is that the entire jewellery should consequently be regarded as explained. The chart furnished by the assessee attributes 100 grams to each male member, 500 grams to each married female and 250 grams to each unmarried female, resulting in an aggregate claim of 2,900 grams.

8.3 We have already examined, while dealing with the addition on account of cash, the assessee’s claim regarding the composition of the family. On such examination, we have found that the subsequent claim regarding the larger family comprising additional members was not satisfactorily established by the material brought on record. In particular, the mere existence of a common address in Aadhaar or other documents was found insufficient to establish that such persons were actually residing at the searched premises and formed part of the household whose assets were found there. We see no reason to take a different view of the same factual position while examining the jewellery. 8.4 The same factual finding, however, has to be applied to the jewellery issue in its proper context. The Assessing Officer did not reject the applicability of CBDT Instruction No.1916 altogether. On the contrary, he himself extended the benefit of the Instruction and

Sanjeev Kumar 23 ITA No. 4841/MUM/2026

accepted jewellery of approximately 1,700 grams, corresponding to the family composition stated during the search. The dispute is confined to the assessee’s subsequent claim for enlargement of such benefit on the basis of additional family members. 8.5 In these circumstances, we do not consider it necessary to enter into the larger question whether CBDT Instruction No.1916, by itself, constitutes a conclusive explanation of the source of jewellery for purposes of section 69A. The Assessing Officer has already applied the Instruction in favour of the assessee. The question before us is narrower and turns upon whether the factual foundation for extending its benefit to the additional family members has been established. 8.6 In our considered view, it has not. The assessee’s claim for the aggregate quantity of 2,900 grams proceeds on the assumption that all the persons included in the subsequently furnished family chart constituted members of the same household at the searched premises. We have already found, while dealing with the cash, that this factual assertion has not been satisfactorily established. The additional members therefore cannot be brought into the computation merely for the purpose of enlarging the quantity of jewellery regarded as explained under the Instruction.

8.7 It cannot be overlooked that jewellery held by a family may have been accumulated over a period of several years and that every

Sanjeev Kumar 24 ITA No. 4841/MUM/2026

ornament forming part of such accumulated holding may not necessarily be supported by a purchase invoice. The explanation that the jewellery comprised marriage gifts, Streedhan and other customary acquisitions, therefore, cannot be discarded merely on the ground that documentary evidence is not available in respect of each individual ornament. Nevertheless, when the assessee seeks to claim the benefit of specified quantities in respect of particular family members, the foundational fact that those persons formed part of the household has necessarily to be established. That foundational fact has not been established in respect of the additional members relied upon by the assessee

8.8 The assessee’s reliance upon the substantial returned income of the family members also does not alter the position. Financial capacity may support the possibility of acquisition of jewellery, but it cannot, by itself, establish that jewellery found at the searched premises belonged to persons whose residence and participation in the household have themselves not been established. The same principle applies here as in the case of cash, though the nature of the evidence relevant to the two assets is necessarily different.

8.9 We further note that the Assessing Officer had already allowed jewellery weighing approximately 1,700 grams to remain outside the addition, corresponding to the family composition accepted at the relevant stage. The assessee's subsequent claim for 2,900 grams depends upon establishing the presence and entitlement of the

Sanjeev Kumar 25 ITA No. 4841/MUM/2026

additional family members. Since that factual foundation has not been satisfactorily established, the expanded claim cannot be accepted merely by applying the quantitative limits mechanically.

8.10. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that the assessee has failed to establish, by cogent and satisfactory material, that the jewellery weighing 1,101.03 grams, valued at Rs.60,23,113/-, represented explained jewellery belonging to the various family members. The explanation furnished is rendered insufficient not merely by the absence of documentary evidence of acquisition, but, more fundamentally, by the failure to establish the very factual foundation upon which the claim is made— namely, that the additional family members relied upon by the assessee were residing at the searched premises and that the jewellery found could be attributed to them.

8.11. We accordingly find no infirmity in the approach of the Assessing Officer, as affirmed by the learned CIT(A), in restricting the benefit of CBDT Instruction No.1916 to approximately 1,700 grams and treating the balance jewellery weighing 1,101.03 grams, valued at Rs.60,23,113/-, as unexplained under section 69A of the Act. The grounds raised by the assessee in respect of the addition of unexplained jewellary of Rs.60,23,113/- are accordingly dismissed.

Sanjeev Kumar 26 ITA No. 4841/MUM/2026

Order pronounced in the open Court on 10/08/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 10/08/2026

M. Ranganath Vittal , Sr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forwarded to :

BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai