What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that given the assessee's substantial disclosed income and prior wealth tax disclosures, the purchase of the surplus silver articles was likely from known sources. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.

During a search, additions were made to the assessee's income for gold jewellery and silver articles found. The CIT(A) deleted additions for gold jewellery based on wealth tax returns but confirmed additions for a surplus of 6.5 kg of silver articles.

What were the issues?

Whether additions made for unexplained silver articles are justified when the assessee has substantial disclosed income and prior wealth tax disclosures.

Anil Kumar Sureka, Mumbai vs DCIT | ITAT Cuttack 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “HYBRID COURT AT CUTTACK”

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AR

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

Hearing: 26.05.2026Pronounced: 26.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “HYBRID COURT AT CUTTACK” BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.730/CTK/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Anil Kumar Sureka DCIT, Central Circle- Cuttack C-1901, Chetanya Tower, A Vs M Marg Prabhadevi, Worli, Mumbai-753008. (PAN: AJGPS8652M) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AR Revenue by : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 26.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 26.05.2026

ORDER PER BENCH: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Bhubaneswar [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.CIT(A), Bhubaneswar- 2/10543/2018-19 dated 23.10.2025.

Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is an individual and the assessee has filed its return of income declaring an income of Rs.1,55,33,190/- for the impugned assessment year. There was search on

ITA No.730/CTK/25 the premises of the assessee of M/s Balasore Alloys Limited on 06.02.2019. As a consequence, certain additions have been made in the hands of the assessee representing gold jewellery, silver articles found. It was the submission that the additions to an extent of Rs.21,71,770/- has been made. It was the submission that on appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has considered the fact that the assessee was filing its wealth tax returns. The ld.AR has also drawn our attention to the wealth tax return filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2015-16 wherein silver jewellery and articles to an extent of Rs.75,42,261/- has been disclosed. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) considered this fact and deleted the addition in respect of gold jewellery. Coming to the silver articles, it was found that there was excess of 6.5 kg that is not disclosed in the wealth tax return. Consequently, the ld. CIT(A) had confirmed the addition to the extent of surplus of 6.5 kgs of silver articles. It was the submission that the impugned assessment year is 2019-20, the last year in which the wealth tax return could be filed was assessment year 2015-16. It was the submission that the assessee is having income and disclosing such income of more than 1.5 crores. It was the submission that the assessee purchased this 6.5 kgs silver to a value of Rs.2.65 lakhs with its savings only. It was further submitted by the ld. AR that in the case of the connected matter, the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal has already deleted the similar addition. The ld. AR relied on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Pramod Kr. Agarwal vs.

ITA No.730/CTK/25 DCIT in ITA No.720/CTK/2025 dated 23.03.2026 wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal has held as follows:

“5. We have considered the rival submissions. Without considering the circular per se, the fact that the CBDT itself has notified that 500g for married women and 250g for married men itself shows that CBDT is accepting that it is well to do families do keep gold to such an extent. It is an accepted fact that in earlier generations in India, people believe in investments in gold. Considering this fact and also considering the fact that the assessee is an income tax filer for quite a few years and the assessee has been showing substantial income of Rs.11,00,000/- every year. And also considering the fact that no undisclosed investment has been found nor any incriminating document in the course of search was found, we are of the view that the jewellery which has been found in the course of search is to be considered acquired from within known source of the assessee. Thus, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) stands deleted.” 3.1 It was prayed that the addition as made by the Assessing Officer may be deleted.

In reply, the ld. Sr. DR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has already granted substantial relief to the assessee and no further relief should be granted.

We have considered the rival submissions. The fact remains that the assessee has been filing its wealth tax returns and last wealth tax return was filed for the assessment year 2015-16. The assessee is disclosing income of more than 1.5 crores, however the addition made in respect of surplus silver articles only to the extent of Rs.2,05,472/-. Obviously, this purchase of silver would be from all probabilities from the disclosed income of the assessee. This being so, in the interest of justice, the addition as made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in respect of silver articles of 6.5 kgs stands deleted. 3

ITA No.730/CTK/25 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Cuttack, the 26th May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [George Mathan] लेखा सदस्य/Accountant Member न्याययक सदस्य/Judicial Member

Dated: 26.05.2026. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent – 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),

//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar

ANIL KUMAR SUREKA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -CUTTACK, CUTTACK

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments