ARUSHI SURI,NEW DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT OFFICER, ASSESSMENT UNIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2443/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 January 2026AY 2022-20237 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and material on record. The assessee had submitted details of gold purchased from 2012 to 2017 with bills, and a Customs Export Certificate dated 20.06.2022, valuing jewellery at Rs. 1,21,57,980/- with a total weight of 3124.94 grams. The assessee also submitted details of purchases totalling 3415.553 grams at a value of Rs. 1,29,39,519/- before the impugned assessment year. The Tribunal noted a difference of 290.593 grams between the Customs declared weight and the assessee's total purchase weight. Regarding the quantity, the Tribunal agreed with the Ld. CIT(A)'s findings, considering the difference not substantial, especially since the assessee declared before Customs in a subsequent financial year. However, concerning the rate, the Tribunal found the Ld. CIT(A)'s adopted rate of Rs. 4,000 per gram to be on the higher side. The Tribunal calculated the actual cost to the assessee as Rs. 3788/- per gram (Rs. 1,29,39,519 / 3415.533 grams). Therefore, the AO was directed to adopt the value of Rs. 3788/- per gram instead of Rs. 4000/-. The ground raised by the assessee was partly allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Arushi Suri, is an individual whose total income for Assessment Year 2022-23 was declared at Rs. 95,95,890/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) selected the case for scrutiny to verify investment in time deposits. During assessment, the AO observed that the assessee declared jewellery and bullion valued at Rs. 1,09,84,800/- in the current year, a significant increase from Rs. 31,74,600/- declared in Assessment Year 2021-22. The assessee explained this increase by including the value of gold gifted at marriage and in later years, in addition to self-purchased jewellery. The AO, unconvinced, noted that the assessee's jewellery was valued by Customs Authorities prior to a Dubai visit on 20.06.2022. The AO treated the difference of Rs. 78,10,200/- as unexplained jewellery under Section 69A and made an addition to income from other sources. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC partly allowed the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming part of the addition despite complete evidence having been filed by the assessee, concerning the valuation of jewellery and the applicability of Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in charging a higher rate of gold while valuing the jewellery, and if so, what is the correct rate to be applied? Assessee's Contentions: - The assessee argued that the increased jewellery value included gold gifted at marriage and in later years, in addition to self-purchased jewellery. Purchase bills and a confirmation from her father were submitted to support the gifted jewellery claim. The assessee also contended that the Customs valuation was at market price, while the ITR declaration was at cost. - Regarding the weight discrepancy noted by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the Customs valuation was gross weight including stones, explaining the difference. - The assessee argued that the rate of Rs. 4000 per gram adopted by the Ld. CIT(A) for valuation was abnormal and prayed for a proper rate to be applied. Revenue's Contentions: - The Ld. DR submitted that the rate declared before Customs was the proper rate and that the Ld. CIT(A) had already provided substantial relief, with the adopted rate being appropriate.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES ‘A’: NEW DELHI.

Before: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

For Appellant: Shri Atul Puri, C.A
For Respondent: Shri Ajay Arora, Sr. DR
Hearing: 03.11.2025

PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 20.02.2025 for the assessment year 2022-23, wherein the assesse has raised following grounds:-

“1.That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming part of the addition despite complete evidence having been filed.

2.

That the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in charging higher rate of Gold while valuing the jewelry.

3.

Any other ground before or during the hearing of the appeal.”

2.

The relevant facts are, assesse is an individual drawing salary from M/s Chunmun Stores P

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 →