SRI LAKSHMI PRABHA JEWELLERS,TIRUNELVELI vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), CHENNAI

आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT(A)’), Chennai-20, dated 17.12.2025 for the Assessment Years (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY’) 2017-18 to 2020-21.

ITA No.199 to 202/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18 to 2020-21) Sri Lakshmi Prabha Jewellers. :: 2 :: 2. Since the issues involved are common, the appeals for all the assessment years were heard together. Both the parties also argued them together, raising similar arguments on the issues. Accordingly for the sake of convenience and brevity, we dispose all the appeals by this consolidated order.

“GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20 [CIT(A)] confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) is contrary to law, facts, and circumstances of the case. The learned CIT(A) failed to see that addition made under Section 153C is without jurisdiction and deserves to be deleted. 2. The learned CIT(A)-20 failed to see that the Assessing Officer erred in issuing the notice under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 09.02.2022, several months after the search conducted on 10.11.2020 in the case of Mohanlal Jewellers Pvt Ltd, without recording any objective satisfaction or reasons for such delay. The notice issued after an inordinate lapse of time is, therefore, without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in issuing a notice under section 153C even though the seized material/books/documents relating to the appellant were handed over to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer

ITA No.199 to 202/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18 to 2020-21) Sri Lakshmi Prabha Jewellers. :: 3 :: only on 09.02.2022, i.c., after 01.04.2021. In terms of the first proviso to section 153C(1), this date is the deemed date of initiation of search in the case of an "other person". 4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have see that by virtue of section 153C(3), which mandates that nothing in section 153C shall apply to a search initiated on or after 01.04.2021, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to invoke section 153C in the appellant's case. Therefore, the notice issued and all consequential proceedings are void ab initio. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in sustaining an addition towards alleged gross profit on purported unaccounted purchases, in the absence of any legal or factual basis, rendering the addition arbitrary, conjectural, and unsustainable in law. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in sustaining an addition towards GP in the absence of any incriminating material. found during the course of search relatable to the appellant, and based solely on third-party data seized from the premises of another person, which has no evidentiary value against the appellant. 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in sustaining an addition towards GP solely on entries allegedly appearing in a private and unregulated software (JPACK) maintained by a third party, which is neither statutory nor part of the appellant's books, and therefore incapable of forming the basis for estimation of profits. 8. The learned CIT(A) failed to see that the Assessing Officer erred in law in treating ledger entries maintained in the JPACK software seized from MJPL as conclusive evidence against the appellant, without appreciating that the said software was maintained by a third party and that the appellant had no control over, or access to, the said records. 9. The learned CIT(A) failed to see that the Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts by ignoring the fact that apart from the entries in JPACK, no other corroborative materials were seized pertaining to such entries especially when the appellant has no control over the seized electronic device of a third party. Hence, the additions were made purely on surmise and conjectures and hence are liable to ber struck down. 10. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer solely based on data extracted from the internally maintained 'JPEG' software, which is merely a customized operational and inventory-management tool used by Mohanlal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. for internal control purposes. The said software does not constitute the statutory books of account. 11. The learned CIT(A) failed to see that official and legally recognized books are maintained in Tally, which alone reflects all duly accounted financial transactions. In the absence of any corroboration of the JPEG data with the regular books or supporting evidence, reliance placed on such unverified, non-statutory internal software data is erroneous,

ITA No.199 to 202/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18 to 2020-21) Sri Lakshmi Prabha Jewellers. :: 4 :: contrary to settled law, and wholly insufficient to justify the impugned addition. 12. The learned Assessing Officer erred in framing the assessment in complete violation of the statutory provisions and the principles of natural justice by relying upon statements of a third party, which were used adversely against the appellant, despite the appellant's specific request for an opportunity to cross-examine the deponent. The denial of cross-examination vitiates the entire assessment, being contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries. Consequently, the assessment is bad in law, having been made in breach of natural justice and without adherence to mandatory legal requirements. For these and other grounds that may be rendered at the time of hearing it is most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to allow the appellants appeal and thus render justice.”

ITA No.199 to 202/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18 to 2020-21) Sri Lakshmi Prabha Jewellers. :: 5 :: 7. The AO observed that, the statements of certain persons including Shri Rajendra Kothari of MJPL were recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, wherein it was stated that the “J-Pack” software inter alia contained details of transactions relating to purchase and sale of gold made outside the regular books of accounts. On examination of the data retrieved from the J-Pack software, the AO of the searched person noticed a ledger account in the name “LAKSHMIPRABHA TEKASHI”, which was allegedly linked to the assessee. The ledger reflected the transactions of purchase of gold jewellery/ornaments. Shri Rajendra Kothari, in his statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act dated 30.11.2020 had identified that the said ledger pertains to M/s Sri Lakshmi Prabha Jewellers, Tenkasi. Further, Shri Suresh Khatri, in response to Q No. 27 of his statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act dated 04.12.2020, concurred with the statement given by Shri Kothari. Having regard to the details of the opening and closing balances recorded under the ledger “LAKSHMIPRABHA TEKASHI” in the J- Pack Software of MJPL, the AO tabulated the data concerning the assessee, which is found at Page 3 of the assessment order. It is seen that, in order to verify the above transactions, summons u/s 131(1A) of the Act was issued on 07.12.2020 and the assessee through partner of the firm (Shri Muttuswamy) attended on 22.12.2020, wherein he accepted the unaccounted transactions with M/s MJPL. The relevant

ITA No.199 to 202/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18 to 2020-21) Sri Lakshmi Prabha Jewellers. :: 6 :: excerpts from his statement, as extracted in the assessment order, are noted to be as follows: -

"Q. 7. During the search action u/s. 132 of the IT Act, 1961 at M/s. Mohanlal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., software "J Pack", in that ledger named "LAXMIPRABHA TEKASHI" is maintained for the years 2016-17 to 2020- 21. On questioning Shri. Suresh Khatri, he had identified the ledger belongs to your firm "LAXMIPRABHA TEKASHI". Please explain the transactions with Shri. Suresh Khatri (Copy of ledger annexed). Ans: Yes, I have done these gold and cash transactions with Suresh Khatri. I am maintaining books of accounts and ledger accounts for the transactions with Shri. Suresh Khatri. My auditor Shri. Gomathy Nayakam looking after the books of accounts and ledger account. I have the books of accounts only for last 8years. I will submit the details within one week. Q.9. It is seen from the ledger "LAXMIPRABHA TEKASHI" that you had given gold (Gross: 202191.7 grams and Net: 191120.9 grams) and cash Rs. 5,59,65,188/- to Shri. Suresh Khatri also Gross of Gold about 204466.5 grams and net gold 193178.1 grams received back from Shri. Suresh Khatri. Please explain. Ans: Yes, I have given gold (Gross: 202191.7 grams and Net: 191120.9 grams) in the form of gold ornaments and receive back gold ornaments (204466.5 grams and net gold 193178.1 grams). Also, I had paid Rs. 5,59,65,188/- to Shri. Suresh Khatri. These are business transactions te. Sales & Purchases. I have not received any bills from Shri. Suresh Khatri for receiving the gold ornaments for purchase and after selling the gold ornaments. I will offer tax for the unaccounted gold and cash transactions done with Shri. Suresh Khatri." 8. The assessee thereafter was issued notices u/s 142(1) of the Act asking to explain the above transactions from J-pack Software and a show cause notice was also issued on 04.03.2023. The AO notes that assessee didn’t comply with the notices issued by him (refer Para 8.2). Thereafter, the AO is noted to have observed that the assessee had been silent during the post-search proceedings and has not filed any submission explaining why the admission during the investigation pursuant to search

ITA No.199 to 202/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18 to 2020-21) Sri Lakshmi Prabha Jewellers. :: 7 :: at MJPL was erroneous (refer Para 10.4). Thereafter, the AO is noted to have extensively analyzed the seized material, admission of the assessee and other relevant details and evidences and thereafter quantified the unaccounted transactions conducted by the assessee at Rs.10,78,57,985/- on which he applied gross profit rate of 10.83% and made addition of Rs.1,16,81,020/-. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) concurred with the action of the AO. Aggrieved the assessee is now in appeal before us.

ITA No.199 to 202/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18 to 2020-21) Sri Lakshmi Prabha Jewellers. :: 8 :: rendered in the case of Kasthoori Raja Dhanush Vs ACIT (ITA Nos. 3188 to 3192/Chny/2024) in support of his contentions. The Ld. AR further urged that, the issue relating to the nature of entries recorded in the J- Pack software had been examined by this Tribunal in the case of MJPL wherein, according to him, it was held that the mechanism of recording entries in the J-Pack software and does not, by itself, establish the nature, authenticity, or taxability of the underlying transactions recorded therein. The Ld. AR further submitted that, though the assessee had admitted to the unaccounted transactions reflected in the ledger extracted from Jpack Software of MJPL, but in his view, this statement cannot be treated as conclusive evidence to justify the impugned addition. He thus wants us to delete the same. The Ld. AR alternatively urged that, the estimation of profits at 10.83% was excessive and submitted that the coordinate Benches in similar cases had estimated the profits at 2%.

ITA No.199 to 202/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18 to 2020-21) Sri Lakshmi Prabha Jewellers. :: 9 :: MJPL had admitted that the accounts maintained in this software contained both their unaccounted and accounted transactions and also offered additional income across several years with reference to the details and ledgers found therefrom. It is further observed that, the J- pack software also contained ledgers of the parties with whom MJPL inter alia had unaccounted transactions and one of the ledgers was titled “LAKSHMIPRABHA TEKASHI”. It is seen that, Shri Rajendra Kothari, from whose possession this pen-drive was found had explained the modus operandi for recording unaccounted transactions in these ledgers. It is also noted that, Shri Suresh Khatri, key person of MJPL had affirmed the version of Shri Kothari. We observe that, when the assessee was confronted with this ledger, he also accepted in his statement recorded on 22.12.2020 that, this ledger inter alia contained record of his unaccounted transactions with MJPL and also offered to pay tax on the profit derived from the same. It is not the case before us that, the admission obtained from the assessee was not based on certain incriminating material unearthed by the Revenue. It is also not the case that, the assessee had subsequently retracted his statement. Rather, we find that, only at the fag-end of the assessment and that too after a gap of more than two years, the assessee had simply denied having any unaccounted transaction with MJPL. The assessee did not bring on record any cogent material to objectively rebut and show that his original

ITA No.199 to 202/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18 to 2020-21) Sri Lakshmi Prabha Jewellers. :: 10 :: admission was incorrect. According to us, the contention now being raised by the assessee urging us that, the admission made by him in his statement be ignored, cannot be countenanced and for this, we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Bannalal Jat Constructions Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (106 taxmann.com 127) wherein it was held as follows: -

“13. This court in Ravi Mathur, (supra) which was relied by the ITAT in the present case, after considering catena of previous decisions, held that the statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the IT Act have great evidentiary value and it cannot be discarded in a summary and cryptic manner, by simply observing that the assessee retracted from his statement. One has to come to a definite finding as to the manner in which the retraction takes place. Such retraction should be made as soon as possible and immediately after such statement has been recorded by filing a complaint to the higher officials or otherwise brought to the notice of the higher officials by way of duly sworn affidavit or statement supported by convincing evidence, stating that the earlier statement was recorded under pressure, coercion or compulsion. ….. 14. The judgment of the Delhi High Court in Sunil Aggarwal, (supra) relied by the assessee does not in any manner extend any assistance to him because that was a case in which the court found that the assessee, apart from retracting the statement, also discharged the onus on him through cogent material to rebut the presumption that stood attracted in view of the statement made under Section 132(4) of the IT Act with reference to the entries in the books of accounts of the sales made during the year and the stock position. Similar was the position in Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT [2008] 174 Taxman 466/[2010] 328 ITR 411, wherein the High Court of Gujarat found that the assessee gave proper evidence in support of his retraction. The High Court of Madras in M. Narayanan & Bros. (supra) held that when assessee had explained his statement as not correct in context of materials produced, no amount could be added to his income on the basis of his statement. Similarly, what has been held by the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Omprakash K. Jain [2009] 178 Taxman 179[2010] 322 ITR 362 was that the assessing officer, while considering

ITA No.199 to 202/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18 to 2020-21) Sri Lakshmi Prabha Jewellers. :: 11 :: whether retraction was under duress or coercion, had also to consider genuineness of documents produced before him. …. 16. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bachittar Singh (supra) in para 7 of the report, held as under:— "7. It is not disputed that the statement was made by the assessee at the time of survey, which was retracted on May 28, 2003, and he did not take any further action for a period of more than two months. In such circumstances, the view taken by the Tribunal that retraction from the earlier statement was not permissible, is definitely a possible view. The mere fact that some entries were made in a diary could not be held to be sufficient and conclusive to hold that the statement earlier made was false. The assessee failed to produce books of account which may have been maintained during regular course of business or any other authentic contemporaneous evidence of agricultural income. In the circumstances, the statement of the assessee could certainly be acted upon." … 20. Subsequently, on 04.12.2014 during the post-search proceedings, statement of Shri Bannalal Jat was again recorded under Section 131 of the IT Act, wherein he was again confronted with the various documents seized and cash found during the course of search and the consequent surrender made by him in respect of his two concerns and in response thereto, he again confirmed the surrender of undisclosed income amounting to Rs.1,21,43,210/- and Rs.1,35,00,000/-. It is in this background that we have to view his reply to the show-cause notice submitted on 02.12.2016. This show-cause notice was issued to him by the assessing officer when the appellant-company offered the said undisclosed income to tax. The reliability, importance and sanctity of admission made during search could be refuted only by cogent and convincing evidence. We may in this connection refer to earliest judgment of the Supreme Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd., (supra) wherein it was held that admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it can't be said that it is conclusive. It is open to the person, who made admission to show that it is incorrect. The assessee should be given proper opportunity to show the correct state of affairs. The law with regard to this has developed much thereafter. There is no gainsay the fact that admission made during the search can be disputed by the assessee and at the same time however it is equally well settled that the statement made voluntarily by the assessee could form the basis of assessment. Mere fact that the assessee retracted the statement at later point of time could not make the statement unacceptable. The burden lay on the assessee to show that the admission

ITA No.199 to 202/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18 to 2020-21) Sri Lakshmi Prabha Jewellers. :: 12 :: made by him in the statement earlier at the time of survey was wrong. Such retraction, however, should be supported by a strong evidence stating that the earlier statement was recorded under duress and coercion, and this has to have certain definite evidence to come to the conclusion that indicating that there was an element of compulsion for assessee to make such statement. However, a bald assertion to this effect at much belated stage cannot be accepted. The assessee indulged in maintaining transaction on diaries and loose papers which was not permissible in any of the method of accounting. The assessee, while filing the return of income, has not disclosed any undisclosed income and hence, retracted from the admission made by him during the course of search. Subsequent retraction from the surrender without having evidence or proof of retraction is not permissible in the eyes of law. The statement recorded during the course of search action which was in presence of independent witnesses has overriding effect over the subsequent retraction.” 12. The reliance placed by the Ld. AR on the decision of Kasthoori Raja Dhanush (supra) is found to be misplaced and factually distinguishable. The said decision was rendered in the context of validity of reopening of assessment u/s 153C of the Act and we find that the material facts involved in that decision was not factually distinguishable in as much as there was no such admission made by the assessee, as done in the present case.

ITA No.199 to 202/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18 to 2020-21) Sri Lakshmi Prabha Jewellers. :: 13 :: Rather, it is seen that, the Tribunal had analyzed the details and estimated the value of unaccounted sales and also worked out the unaccounted profit from the same.

6.3.3. I have perused the assessment order and the submissions made by the appellant. The first contention of the appellant is that the documents relied on by the AO can be construed as belonging to the appellant only if it had been obtained from the premises of the appellant. With regard to this contention, it is noted that the provisions of section 153C of the Act have been amended by Finance Act. 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 by substituting the words "belongs or belong to with "pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to. The said amendment has enlarged the scope of section 153C of the Act so as to cover all incriminating material found during the course of search even if such material does not strictly belong to the assessee. Further, it is noted that Shri Suresh Khatri had stated in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act dated 11.11.2020 that the "J-Pack' software was utilized for the purpose of tracking all accounted and unaccounted transactions of M.JPL. This fact makes the Pack' ledgers incriminating in nature. Therefore, the AO was satisfied that the incriminating material in the form of 'LAXMIPRABHA TENKASI' ledger seized during the course of search in the case of MJPL pertains to the appellant and is likely to have an impact or bearing on assessed income of the appellant. In this regard, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Shiv Parkash Bansal v. DCIT [2025] 172 taxmann.com 317 (Delhi) has held that an action under Section 153C is premised solely on the discovery of incriminating material and which is likely to have an impact or bearing on the assessed income of a non-searched entity. In the present case, since the AO was in possession of the incriminating material in form of 'LAXMIPRABHA TENKASI' ledger pertaining to the appellant, I am of the opinion that this contention of the appellant is devoid of merits.

ITA No.199 to 202/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18 to 2020-21) Sri Lakshmi Prabha Jewellers. :: 14 :: 6.3.4. The second contention of the appellant is that out of the entries recorded in the 'LAXMIPRABHA TENKASI' ledger, only the entries which are recorded in the books of the appellant pertain to the appellant and the balance entries does not pertain to the appellant. In this regard, it is noted that the 'LAXMIPRABHA TENKASI ledger contains transactions with respect to sale of 34,503.42 gms of gold jewellery/ornaments by MJPL to the appellant in the year under consideration. Out of these transactions, AO has considered the purchases of 2,707.76 gms as recorded in the books of account of the appellant from the details of purchases submitted by the appellant during the assessment proceedings. This clearly shows that some part of entries are matching with the transactions of the appellant as recorded in his books of account, which proves that the J-pack ledger maintained in the name of LAXMIPRABHA TENKASI pertains to the appellant only. In other words, the appellant has accepted that the transaction to the tune of 2,707.76 gms pertains to the appellant but denied the balance purchase transactions even though same were recorded in the said ledger which is a running ledger and having transactions recorded on a continuous basis from the beginning of the financial year to end of the year. It is settled law that it cannot be considered that part of seized material is correct and the remaining is incorrect. Since entries for 2,707.76 gms clearly matched with the transactions recorded in the books of account of the appellant, it is clearly proved that that the said ledger pertains to the appellant in its entirety. The appellant has tried to pick and choose some transactions as pertaining to it while denying the rest, which cannot be allowed. Thus, it can be concluded that the entries made in the 'LAXMIPRABHA TENKASI' ledger pertain to the appellant only and the same is backed up by the corroborative evidence in the form of partly accounted entries in the books of account of the appellant. Therefore, it is held that this contention of the appellant also lacks merits. 6.3.5. The last contention of the appellant is with regard to the reliance of the AO on the sworn statements recorded from Shri Suresh Khatri & Shri Rajendra Kothari without providing opportunity for cross examination. Firstly, it is noted that Shri Suresh Khatri & Shri Rajendra Kothari had only explained the modus operandi adopted by them to record MJPL's accounted as well as unaccounted transactions in J-Pack and they had not stated anything specifically against the appellant by naming the appellant. In such circumstances, there is no need to grant any cross-examination to the appellant. This view is also support by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Swati Bajaj [2022] 446 ITR 56 (Calcutta). Secondly, it is also noted from the assessment order that the AO has not relied on any statement for making the addition. The AO has made the addition only by analyzing the seized incriminating material with the books of account of the appellant. Therefore, it is held that this contention of the appellant is also without any merits. 15. We thus see no reason to interfere with the above findings and confirm the same.

ITA No.199 to 202/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18 to 2020-21) Sri Lakshmi Prabha Jewellers. :: 15 :: 16. Now coming to the issue regarding estimation of profits on the value of unaccounted transactions, the Ld. AR pleaded that the G.P rate for this year cannot be adopted to be the profit from these unaccounted sales, if the addition was to be sustained. He stated that the adoption of the relevant year’s G.P rate on the accounted sales would not represent the profit earned from the sales made by the appellant-assessee outside the books of account. In this regard, it was brought to our notice that, this Tribunal in cases of M/s Gold AIK (ITA Nos. 1046 to 1051/Chny/2024) dated 06.11.2024 & DCIT Vs Sitaram Jewellers (ITA Nos.913 & 915/Chny/2025) rendered on similar facts and circumstances involving the ledgers extracted from Jpack software of MJPL, had estimated the profit at 2%. In M/s Gold AIK (supra), this Tribunal directed the AO to adopt the G.P @ 2% on the unaccounted sale as below; We are of the view that a reasonable profit rate should be estimated and if the gross profit rate is to be added that can be added at the rate of 2%, going by the nature of business of the assessee and similar line of business only on the unaccounted part or payment made in cash for which cash was utilized for making purchases and consequent sale of MJPL. Hence, we are of the view that a reasonable estimate of gross profit of 2% will meet the ends of justice for both sides i.e., for the Department as well as for the assessee for all these six assessment years for unaccounted purchases only of gold from MJPL not recorded in the regular books of accounts. Hence, we direct the AO to apply gross profit rate of 2% on cash payment made for unaccounted purchases of gold from MJPL for these relevant six assessment years and not on recorded purchases. The assessee will file complete detail of purchases made in cash payment and purchases made through banking channel i.e., RTGS etc., before the AO and the AO will accordingly apply profit rate only on unaccounted purchases made through cash payments of gold through MJPL as recorded in the seized document

ITA No.199 to 202/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18 to 2020-21) Sri Lakshmi Prabha Jewellers. :: 16 :: 'Amanullah KDR' i.e., ledger account find in J-Pack software. Hence, in view of the above direction for computation of income, the matter is restored back to the file of the AO for applying profit rate of 2% only on unaccounted cash payments made to MJPL. 17. To consider this plea, the Bench queried the Ld. AR the basis for adoption of G.P @ 2% as opposed to the G.P as per the assessee- appellant’s books. In reply, the Ld. AR stated that the G.P rate as per the books of accounts is the result of retail sale of gold jewells, which involves incurring several expenses to make the product fit for sale, such as, making charges, wastage charges etc. Furthermore, the retail sale of gold and gold jewells is a wide market, and the demand for the products sold is high with various players involved in said line of business. In such a scenario with high demand, the appellant would be free to sell the goods at healthy prices, which at the same time need to be competitive.

ITA No.199 to 202/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18 to 2020-21) Sri Lakshmi Prabha Jewellers. :: 17 :: stated that the gold is sold in quick transactions (i.e.) purchases and sales being made within the accounting year. The purchases made outside the books would not be retained in hand for elongated period and would be sold off almost instantaneously, to earn profits and utilize the funds earned there from.

ITA No.199 to 202/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18 to 2020-21) Sri Lakshmi Prabha Jewellers. :: 18 :: at after a detailed study of the gold sector, enquiry into the demand for gold and the purchase power/patterns of the people. He thus prayed that the G.P for the unaccounted sales be fixed at 2%.

ITA No.199 to 202/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18 to 2020-21) Sri Lakshmi Prabha Jewellers. :: 19 :: instead of 10.83% as computed in the assessment order for AY 2020-21. The AO is directed to re-compute the final assessable income.

ITA No.199 to 202/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18 to 2020-21) Sri Lakshmi Prabha Jewellers. :: 20 :: 2020-21 is wholly without jurisdiction and was issued without authority, non-est in eyes of law.

ITA No.199 to 202/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18 to 2020-21) Sri Lakshmi Prabha Jewellers. :: 21 :: order u/s.153C read with section 143(3) of the Act is unsustainable, and bad in law, and null in the eyes of law.

In light of our above findings, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced on the 05th day of June, 2026, in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एबी टी. वक�) (बालकृ�न एस) (ABY T. VARKEY) (BALAKRISHNAN. S) �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 5th June, 2026. YS Digitally signed YASHVI by YASHVIR SINGH R SINGH Date: 2026.07.03 15:28:43 +05'30'

ITA No.199 to 202/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18 to 2020-21) Sri Lakshmi Prabha Jewellers. :: 22 :: आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF