MOHAMMAD AYUB,BHOPAL vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( CENTRAL) GWALIOR, BHOPAL

ITA 422/IND/2025Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 October 2026AY 2021-228 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 3,80,000/- on account of unexplained gold jewellery weighing 79.69 grams was justified. The Tribunal observed that the AO had correctly allowed the benefit of 1,450 grams of gold jewellery in respect of the assessee and his family members as per CBDT Instruction No. 1916. It was noted that jewellery found in the respective bedrooms of the assessee's two brothers was considered separately in their assessments, with no addition made in their cases. The Tribunal reasoned that merely residing in the same premises does not automatically imply that all jewellery belonged to a common family pool or that the permissible limits for the brothers' family members remained available for the assessee's jewellery. The CBDT Instruction No. 1916 provides guidelines for seizure and does not offer unconditional exemption. The assessee failed to provide material establishing common ownership or demonstrating that the eligible benefit attributable to other family members remained unutilised. Therefore, the assessee's claim for further adjustment was not accepted. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and upheld the addition. The grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mohammad Ayub, is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) for Assessment Year 2021-22. The appeal challenges the addition of Rs. 3,80,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and upheld by the CIT(A). This addition pertains to unexplained gold jewellery found during a search operation under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, conducted on November 6, 2020, at the assessee's residential premises. The assessee had filed a return of income in response to a notice under section 153A. During the search, approximately 4,610.59 grams of gold jewellery were found. The AO accepted jewellery belonging to other relatives and jewellery found in the brothers' bedrooms separately. The AO allowed a benefit of 1,450 grams based on CBDT Instruction No. 1916 for the assessee and his family, treating the remaining 79.69 grams as unexplained.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 3,80,000/- on account of unexplained gold jewellery is justified, considering the jewellery was found in a joint residential premises occupied by the assessee and his two brothers along with their families? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the jewellery found during the search should have been considered collectively. The permissible benefit under CBDT Instruction No. 1916 should have been determined with reference to all eligible family members residing in the joint premises. The AO incorrectly restricted the benefit to jewellery found only in the assessee's bedroom. Reliance was placed on Sureshchand Agrawal vs. DCIT. Revenue's Contention: The revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities, arguing that the AO correctly allowed the benefit under CBDT Instruction No. 1916 for the assessee and his family. Jewellery belonging to the assessee's brothers and their families was considered separately in their assessments, and therefore, the assessee was not entitled to claim additional benefit for those family members. Reliance was placed on V.G.P. Ravidas v. ACIT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132(1),Section 153A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI & SHRI ARVIND SONI

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Deshpande, AR
For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh CIT-DR
Hearing: 08.10.2026Pronounced: 22.10.2026

PER ARVIND SONI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

The assessee has preferred the present appeal against the order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) for A.Y. 2021-22, confirming the addition of Rs.3,80,000/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) on account of unexplained gold jewellery found during the course of search.

Mohammad Ayub 2.A search and seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was conducted on 06.11.2020 at the residential premises of the assessee, D-32, BDA Colony, Kohefiza, Bhopal where he was residing along with his tw

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 132(1)

All 846 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →