SRI AMIT KUMAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC-4(3),, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1362/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 April 2026AY 2021-20226 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the weight of the jewellery was below the limit prescribed by CBDT Instruction No. 1916, which allows for undisclosed jewellery up to certain limits for married individuals. The assessee had also claimed the jewellery was received at the time of marriage, a long-standing event.

What were the facts?

During a search, jewellery worth ₹17,05,616/- was found in the assessee's possession. The Assessing Officer added this amount to the assessee's income, stating it was not disclosed in the ITRs and thus CBDT Instruction No. 1916 could not be applied.

What were the issues?

Whether jewellery found during a search, which was not disclosed in the ITRs, can be added to income when it falls within the limits prescribed by CBDT Instruction No. 1916 and is claimed to be received at marriage.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, AR
For Respondent: Ms. Monalisa Pal Mukherjee, DR
Hearing: 08.04.2026Pronounced: 28.04.2026

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kolkata-27, (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 05.03.2025 for the AY 2021-22.

2.

At the outset, we note that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 24 days. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee filed condonation application along with affidavit and explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay is for bonafide and genuine reasons and hence, we condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal.

4.

The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 12.02.2022, declaring total income at ₹22,44,380/-. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 25.09.2020 at the premises of the assessee. During the course of search, the jewellery of ₹17,05,616/- was found along with other items. The Ld. AO added the same to the income of the assessee on the ground that the assessee and his wife never disclosed any jewellery acquired in any manner or from any source whatsoever in their respective ITRs and therefore CBDT instruction no.1916 dated 11.05.1994, cannot be applied to the said case. Consequently, the same was added u/s 69A of the Act besides the addition in respect of cash found of ₹ 11,18,500/-.

5.

In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the addition in respect of jewellery found during the course of search amounting to ₹17,05,616/- by upholding the finding given by the Ld. AO that assessee / his wife never disclosed the said jewellery in the return of ITRs and thus, justified the addition made.

6.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that during the course of search jewellery worth of ₹17,05,616/- was found by the search team. According to the Ld. AO, the said jewellery was never disclosed by the assessee or his wife to be acquired from any source in the ITRs filed and therefore, the same was added without giving the benefit of CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994. We also note that

“The objection is raised on behalf of the revenue that no reliance could be placed on the explanation offered by the lady, as she had failed to offer any explanation at the earliest opportunity before the ITO. An appeal is a continuation of the assessment and it is undisputed that the AAC is empowered to admit additional evidence at the time of the hearing. Moreover, the AAC allowed her to offer an explanation on which he acted. It should be mentioned in this connection that no such objection was raised at any stage of the appeal. In this view of the matter, the objection seems to be without substance. In our opinion there would be absolutely no reason to discard the explanation offered by the lady as to the acquisition of the ornaments. It should be remembered that the assessing authorities did not dispute that the assessee belonged to a rich family and that she must have received some ornaments at her marriage; and it was also pointed out that it was difficult for her to prove the source of acquisition after 35 years of her marriage, when some of her relations making gifts and presentation Were already dead. According to such authorities she could normally have possessed jewellery worth Rs. 25,000. This, the authorities treated as the jewelleries' worth, and the balance of Rs. 40,000 as an acquisition from unexplained sources.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 28.04.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 28.04.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS

Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy//

Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →