NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

ITA 530/NAG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 August 2026AY 2017-1813 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) regarding jewellery was erroneous. It found that the explanation regarding the source and ownership of the jewellery was reasonable and within the limits prescribed by CBDT Instruction No. 1916. The Tribunal also held that Section 115BBE was not applicable to the assessment year in question.

What were the facts?

During a search, jewellery and cash were found. The assessee, a Chartered Accountant, explained the source of the jewellery, claiming some belonged to his wife and the rest was within reasonable limits for his age, status, and customs. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- as unexplained money.

What were the issues?

Whether the sustained addition for unexplained jewellery is justified, considering the assessee's explanation and CBDT guidelines, and whether Section 115BBE is applicable for the relevant assessment year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 132,Section 143(3),Section 250,Section 234A,Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH :: NAGPUR

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Loya, CA
For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Hearing: 12.06.2026Pronounced: 10.08.2026

PER KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur (for short, “CIT(A)”), dated 24/06/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which is emanating from the assessment order dated 26.12.2018 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act by the ACIT, Central Circle-3, Nagpur, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: (1)

That the order of the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(3), Nagpur u/s 143(3) is bad in law and wrong on facts and the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the same. (2)

That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming th

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →