Loading judgment…
Facts
During a search and seizure operation on related entities, bullion worth Rs. 16,72,272/- was found in the assessee's locker. The assessee claimed this bullion was from melting old jewelry, supported by an affidavit and a jeweler's confirmation. However, these documents were obtained after the search and assessment.
Held
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 16,72,272/- as unexplained investment. It found the supporting documents to be lacking in authenticity due to their post-search issuance and the jeweler's confirmation to be unreliable for lack of specific details. The benefit of CBDT instruction regarding jewelry was also found inapplicable to bullion.
Key Issues
Whether the bullion found in the assessee's locker constitutes unexplained investment, and if the provided documentary evidence sufficiently explains its source.
Sections Cited
143(3), 153C, 69A, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
ORDER
PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :
The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-29, New Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] dt. 16.07.2025 arising out of the assessment order dt. 29.03.2022 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act for Assessment Year 2020-21.
Briefly facts are that assessee is an individual and filed her original return of income declaring total Income of Rs.3,92,220/- on 04.01.2021. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 27.11.2018 at the residential and business premises of Shri Amarjit Bakali, Shri Kanwaljit Bakshi, Ms. Amrita Bakshi, Shri Sanjit Bakshi, M/s Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt Ltd, M/s Smt. Nirmal Puri Vs. ACIT Oriental Tollway Pvt Ltd and M/s Sweta Estates Pvt Ltd. During the course of Search at Locker No. 2027, Punjab National Bank, Sainik Vihar, Shakur Basti. Delhi in the name of assessee, Bullion of Rs. 16,72,272/- and Cash of Rs.2,41,450/- were seized. The Assessee is mother of Sh. Gaurav Puri who was working as Vice President in M/s Indian Technocrat Ltd., a Group Company of the M/s Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt Ltd. A notice u/s 143(2) followed by notices u/s 142(1) of the Act along-with questionnaire were issued from time to time. In response assessee furnished the details/information/documents and after examining the same, assessment was completed by making addition of Rs. 16,72,272/- u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act by holding the bullion weighing 426.600 gms. as unexplained investment of the assessee.
Against the said order, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising following grounds of appeal:
1. The order of the AOu/s 143(3) r.w.s 153C of the Act is nonest in law as it does not bear any DIN no. and thus the subsequent proceedings and the order of CIT (A) is illegal wrong and bad in law.
2. Without prejudice to the above, the Id. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.16,72,272l- u/s of the Act. The Id. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the total weight of the jewellery including bullion was within the permissible limits allowed by CBDT and hence the addition u/s 69A, as alleged unexplained income should be deleted.
3. The appellant contends that having regard to the status of the family, customs and practices of the community to which the family belongs, and the assessee being of 72 age the explanation provided by the assessee with regard to the source of jewellery and bullion should have been accepted by the CIT(A) as being reasonable and the addition should be deleted.
4. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to one and another.
5. The appellant may be allowed to add, alter, forgo any of the ground at the time of hearing.”
Heard both the parties at length and perused the material available on records. The claim of the assessee is that the immediate source of bullion found from her locker is out of melting of her old jewellery and in support her affidavit alongwith a confirmatory letter of M/s Dhawan Jewellers dt. 21.7.2022 was filed. AO Alleged is that assessee neither at the time of search nor during post search proceedings had ever made any such claim and further the confirmation filed of the jeweller do not have the precise details of items of jewellery melted and the exact date when they were melted. The jeweller simply confirmed the fact of melting based on his memory without any supporting evidences. Assessee further claimed that benefit of CBDT instruction dt. 11.5.1994 should be allowed and if the same is given, bullion found would be covered in the gross weight allowable for entire family of the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) after considering these facts confirmed the addition by observing as under: “6.2 I have perused the assessment order with relevant documents and submission of appellant. It is noted that in order to explain the source of the bullion, appellant furnished a copy of certificate issued by jeweller named Dhawan Jewellers dated 21.07.2022, which is issued after the date of both search operation i.e.
27.11.2018 and date of completion of assessment proceedings i.e. 29.03.2022, is submitted by appellant. Similarly, affidavit produced by appellant in respect to justify the ownership of jewellery /bullion is made on date 13.07.2023, which is after the date of completion of search operation and relevant assessment. Hence, authenticity or genuineness of these documents remained in question due to being prepared after completion of both search and assessment proceedings. Hence the contention of appellant is not acceptable and it can be said that appellant merely failed to produce specific documentary evidences in order to explain the source of bullion seized, in both stages i.e. before AO or even in the ongoing appellate proceedings. On the other hand, AO has given detailed facts and findings on this issue in assessment order which clearly reflected that source of bullion could not be explained by appellant. 6.3 Under these circumstances, I am inclined to agree with the addition made by AO as discussed above and accordingly, these grounds of appeal are hereby dismissed.”
6. The ownership of the locker and bullion found therein is not in dispute. As observed above, before us, assessee has not placed any evidence to substantiate the source of acquisition of bullion found during search in the locker. Assessee reiterated the facts which were stated before the lower authorities. The affidavit filed by the assessee is self-serving evidence and confirmation of M/s Dhawan Jeweller is not worthy for being accepted as it do not contain any details of the jewellery melted and it was given based on the memory without any supporting evidence like weighing slip issued after melting of jewellery, the charges paid for melting etc.
7. Regarding the benefit of CBDT instruction dt. 11.5.1994, the said instruction talks about the jewellery found at the time of search and not with respect to bullion. As per the said circular, looking to the social status etc. jewellery to the extent of particular Smt. Nirmal Puri Vs. ACIT weight is treated as explained in the case of male and married and unmarried lady of the family searched and nowhere it allows any credit for the bullion. Thus no benefit could be given for the said instruction to the assessee. The judgements of hon’ble jurisdictional high court in the case of Sushila Devi Vs. CIT reported in [2016] 76 Taxmann.com 163 (Delhi) and in the case of Ashok Chaddha Vs ITO reported in [2011] 14 Taxmann.com 57 (Delhi) relied upon by the assessee are also not applicable to the facts of the present case where in both the cases, the hon’ble high court allowed the benefit of the CBDT instructions dt. 11.5.1994 and further the benefit of ‘Stree Dhan’ for the jewellery found during the search and not for the Bullion found. It is also a matter of fact that besides the bullion, jewellery having weight of 816.130 gms. was also found during search with the family of the assessee for which no addition was made by allowing the benefit of CBDT instruction dt. 11.5.1994.
In view of above facts, we find no error in the order of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the additions and thus the same is hereby upheld. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are dismissed.
In the result appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23.12.2025.