ASHA SHIVDASANI,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2312/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 January 2026AY 2019-20Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal considered that the assessee herself admitted ownership of the jewelry found at her residence during the search. Her subsequent claim that it belonged to her daughter was contradictory and lacked documentary evidence. However, jewelry in the locker, which was jointly owned with her daughter, was returned. The addition made by the AO under Section 69A was upheld.

What were the facts?

During a search and seizure operation, gold and diamond jewelry were found at the assessee's residence and in a locker. The assessee initially stated that the jewelry belonged to her, received as gifts. Later, she claimed most of it belonged to her daughter. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act for unexplained jewelry.

What were the issues?

Whether the jewelry found at the assessee's residence was unexplained and liable for addition under Section 69A, despite the assessee's conflicting claims of ownership.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 153A,Section 143(3),Section 132(1),Section 132(4),Section 292C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Appellant: Shri Shreyas Shah,AR
For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, (Sr. DR)
Hearing: 23.12.2025Pronounced: 19.01.2026

आदेश की प्रतितलतप अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →