ANJU KUMARI,JAMSHEDPUR vs. (ACIT) CENTRAL CIR JSR, JAMSHEDPUR

ITA 146/RAN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 September 2026AY 2023-2413 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹10,79,786 on account of 193.51 grams of gold jewellery was unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was part of a joint family, and jewellery was kept together. The AO failed to identify and correlate each item of jewellery with individual family members. The Tribunal considered the total jewellery found and the exemption limits as per CBDT Instruction No. 1916 (500 grams per lady and 200 grams per male). The assessee was able to provide sources for the investment in jewellery through purchase invoices. Therefore, the difference of 193.51 grams was sufficiently explained in the context of a joint family and multiple ladies in the family. The Tribunal also held that the addition of ₹16,74,000 for 300 grams of gold bullion was unsustainable. The gold bullion was declared under VDIS-1997 by the assessee's mother-in-law and father-in-law, which was accepted by the department. The AO failed to correlate the gold bullion with the assessee individually, despite it being jointly held and already declared. The Tribunal concluded that in joint families, jewellery and bullions are commonly kept together, and the overall benefit of exemptions under CBDT Circular No. 1916 cannot be denied without individual segregation and correlation. Accordingly, both additions were deleted, and the appeal was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Anju Kumari, is appealing an order dated 27/02/2026 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Patna-3, for Assessment Year 2023-24. The appeal arises from a search and seizure operation conducted on 12/01/2023. The Assessing Officer (AO) made two additions under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The first addition of ₹10,79,786 was for 193.51 grams of gold jewellery found in residential premises and bank lockers, which the AO deemed unexplained beyond 500 grams. The second addition of ₹16,74,000 was for 300 grams of gold bullion found in a locker jointly held with a family member, also treated as unexplained. The CIT(A) confirmed both additions. The assessee's return declared a total income of ₹4,01,660.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in law, the addition of ₹10,79,786 under Section 69A, treating 193.51 grams of gold jewellery as unexplained, is sustainable, considering the explanation and purchase invoices furnished by the assessee? 2. Whether, on the facts and in law, the addition of ₹16,74,000 under Section 69A, on account of 300 grams of gold bullion found in a jointly held locker, is sustainable, considering it formed part of a disclosure under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997, and the fungible nature of gold? Assessee's arguments: - For the jewellery addition, the assessee argued that the genuineness of purchase invoices from Tanishq and PC Jewellers, and the payment sources, were not doubted by the CIT(A). The dispute was confined to 193.51 grams, and invoices for 197.91 grams of matching description and purity were on record. The law does not require item-serial-number-level correlation for fungible commodities like gold jewellery purchased years prior. Reliance was placed on CBDT Instruction No. 1916 and the decision in Ram Prakash Mahawar vs. DCIT. - For the gold bullion addition, the assessee contended that it was part of a VDIS-1997 disclosure by the mother-in-law and father-in-law, and the AO failed to correlate the bullion with the assessee individually, ignoring the joint ownership and the fungible nature of gold. Reliance was placed on the decision in Kuruganti Srivalli vs. ACIT. Revenue's arguments: - The learned Senior Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 132,Section 139,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

Before: SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY & SMT. RAJANI GUDURI

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Sandipan Khan, Sr.DR
Hearing: 08/09/2026Pronounced: 30/09/2026

PER: BENCH

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Patna-3, Patna [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 27/02/2026 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2023-24, wherein the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

"

1.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition of Rs 10,79,786/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer under Section 69A of the Act by treating the alleged excess gold jewellery as unexplained, without properly appreciating 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 →