What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the affidavit from the assessee's father, which was not found to be false, could not be discarded. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.

During a search, 16.200 kgs of silver articles were found in the possession of the assessee, a director in a company. The assessee claimed the silver articles belonged to his mother, supported by an affidavit from his father.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made on account of unexplained silver articles is justified when supported by an affidavit from a third party.

Nikunj Pansari, Howrah vs DCIT | ITAT Cuttack 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & RAJESH KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AR

For Respondent: Shri Vijaya Singh, Sr. DR

Hearing: 26/05/2026Pronounced: 26/05/2026

1 ITA No.745/Ctc/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-2020

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.745/Ctc/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-2020

Nikunj Pansari,2, Watkins Lane, Vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Howrah-711101, West Bengal Cuttack PAN/GIR No. ASYPP 4760 A (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AR Revenue by : Shri Vijaya Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 26/05/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 26/05/2026

O R D E R Per Bench

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-2, dated 31.10.2025 in Appeal No.CIT(A), Bhubaneswar- 2/10726/2018-19 for the assessment year 2019-20.

Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr. DR appeared for the revenue.

It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee is a director in the company M/s. Balasore Alloys Ltd. There was a search on Balasore Alloys Ltd., on 6.2.2019. The assessee was covered under the search. In the course of search, jewellery was found

2 ITA No.745/Ctc/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 and silver articles to an extent of Rs.16.200 kgs was found in the possession of the assessee. The assessee had filed an affidavit from his father, wherein, his father has categorically stated that the silver articles belonged to the assessee’s mother, which was kept with the assessee’s son. This affidavit has not been believed. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.6,64,200/- representing the value of 16.200 kgs of silver articles. It was the submission that the assessee is filing his return of income disclosing an amount of Rs.79,24,750/- as his income for the impugned assessment year. It was the submission that the silver articles belonged to the assessee’s mother. It was the prayer that the addition may be deleted. It was also the submission that the ld CIT(A) has also treated the rest of the jwellery as explained.

In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that the fact that the assessee was unable to explain the silver articles of 16.200 kgs, therefore, the addition made is liable to be upheld.

We have considered the rival submissions. The affidavit of the assessee’s father reads as follows:

3 ITA No.745/Ctc/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-2020

4 ITA No.745/Ctc/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-2020

5 ITA No.745/Ctc/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-2020

It has also been confirmed by ld AR that the assessee’s father Shri Vinod Pansari has been assessed and no addition in respect of any surplus jewellery or gold or silver articles has been done. The affidavit filed by the assessee’s father has not been shown to be false. In fact, the affidavit specifically records various jewellery and silver articles

6 ITA No.745/Ctc/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 found in the course of search. There is no addition in respect of jewellery found in the course of search insofar as the same have been found to be fully accounted for. It was noticed that the assessee has paid substantial tax and offering substantial income in his return of income. The affidavit having not been found to be false, same cannot be discarded because this affidavit is of the assessee’s father. This being so, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by ld CIT(A) stands deleted. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 26/05/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack ; Dated 26/05/2026 RS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. Nikunj Pansari,2, Watkins Lane, Howrah-711101, West Bengal

The respondent: DCIT, Central Circle, Cuttack 3. The CIT(A)- 4. Pr.CIT, 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order Asst. Registrar. ITAT, Cuttack

NIKUNJ PANSARI,HOWRAH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -CUTTACK, CUTTACK

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments