ABHISHEK BANSAL,PATNA vs. JCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2167/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 September 2025AY 2022-237 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had attempted to prove the source of the opening balance of 358.87 gms of gold jewellery by referring to the accounts as an opening balance as of 01.04.2006. While the assessee prima facie appeared to have discharged its onus, the Tribunal found that the AO correctly noted the lack of evidence corroborating that the jewellery pertained to a period prior to 2006, and no wealth tax return supported this claim. However, the Tribunal also found that the Revenue's attempt to entirely disbelieve the assessee's contention that the jewellery predated 2006 could not be fully justified. Considering this factual matrix, the Tribunal concluded that some element of failure to explain the gold jewellery could not be ruled out. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal directed a lump-sum addition of only 233.87 gms of gold jewellery for ITA No. 2166/DEL/2025, valued at the prevalent rate of Rs. 4314.78 per gram as on 14.01.2022. This was done with a rider that it should not be treated as a precedent. For ITA No. 2167/DEL/2025, following the same logic, the Tribunal allowed the benefit of 61.36 gms of gold and directed the AO to bring to tax only 100 gms of gold jewellery, valued at the prevalent rate of Rs. 4314.78 per gram as on 14.01.2022. The decision of the CIT(A) was sustained to the extent of these revised additions. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

These appeals by Shri Saket Bansal and Shri Abhishek Bansal concern Assessment Year 2022-23. They are directed against the order of the CIT(A)-26, New Delhi, dated 27.02.2025. The appeals were heard together due to common issues. A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was conducted on 17.11.2021, covering the assessees. During the search, jewellery worth Rs. 1,72,07,965/- and bullion worth Rs. 34,52,843/- were found in a locker but not seized. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted an opening balance of gold jewellery, including 22-carat gold coins, of 358.87 grams as of 31.03.2006. The value of this as of 14.01.2022 was Rs. 15,48,446/-. As the assessee could not provide the source for this jewellery, the AO treated it as unexplained money under Section 69B and added it to the income. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the contention that a proper opportunity of being heard was not provided by the AO (Section 69B). 2. Whether the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding that the assessee failed to provide documentary proof for acquiring gold jewellery weighing 358.87 gms, valued at Rs. 15,48,446/- as per rates prevalent on 14.01.2022 (Section 69B). 3. Whether the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the valuation of gold jewellery at rates prevalent on 14.01.2022 instead of rates prior to 2006 (Section 69B). 4. Whether the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the contention that the alleged unexplained jewellery was part of jewellery shown at a purchase value of Rs. 58,83,327/- in the asset liability statement for AY 2020-21 (Section 69B). 5. Whether the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the AO's finding that the source of 358.87 gms of jewellery remains unexplained (Section 69B). 6. Whether the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 15,48,446/- as unexplained income by applying Section 69B based on presumptions and surmises. 7. Whether the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the invocation of Section 115BBE. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that proper opportunity was not provided. They contended that the jewellery was acquired prior to 2006 and was part of the opening balance reflected in their accounts. They also argued that the valuation should be at rates prior to 2006, not 14.01.2022, and that the jewellery was already accounted for in the asset liability statement for AY 2020-21. They challenged the addition under Section 69B and the invocation of Section 115BBE. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, through the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A), contended that the assessee failed to provide documentary proof for the acquisition of the jewellery and that its source remained unexplained, justifying the addition under Section 69B and Section 115BBE.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69B,Section 115BBE,Section 132

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘Aʼ BENCH, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 2166/DEL/2025
ITA No. 2167/DEL/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

assessee are directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-26, New Delhi dated 27.02.2025 pertaining to A.Y 2022-23.

2.

Since common issues are involved in these two appeals, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity, though the quantum may differ. For the sake of our convenience, we are adjudicating on the facts of

3.

The grounds raised by the assessee read as under:

1.

That the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad in law as well as on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the contention of the appellant that proper opportunity of being heard was not provided by the Id. AO.

3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding that the assessee has not been able to provide the documentary proof acquiring of gold jewellery weighing 358.87 gms (shown as the opening balance as on 01.04.2006) and valuing Page 2 of 7 &2167 /DEL/2025 Saket & Abhishek Bansal Vs JCIT [A.Y 2022-23] the same at Rs. 15,48,446/- as per the rates prevalent on 14.01.2022 (Rs. 4314.78 per gm).

4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in upholding the value of gold jewellery including 22 carat gold coins weighing 358.87 gms. at rates prevalent on 14.01.2022 and not at rates prior to 2006.

5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in ignoring the contention of the assessee that the alleged unexplained jewellery was part of the jewellery shown at the purchase value of Rs. 58,83,327/- in the asset liability statement of the return filed for AY 2020-21 the details of which were provided to him in the copy of ledger account of jewellery.

6. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in upholding the finding of the Id. AO that the source of 358.87 gms of jewellery remains unexplained.

7. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 15,48,446/- made by the Id. AO on account of it being unexplained income by applying the provisions of section 69B of the Act on the basis of presumptions and surmises.

8. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in upholding the invocation of the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act.”

4.

Brief facts of the case are that original return in this case was filed on 29.07.2022 declaring income of Rs. 1,57,76,550/-. A search and Page 3 of 7 &2167 /DEL/2025 Saket & Abhishek Bansal Vs JCIT [A.Y 2022-23] seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] was conducted on 17.11.2021 and on subsequent dates on different business and residential premises of Pacific Group of Cases.

The case of the assessee was also covered during the course of search & seizure operation in this case. In the course of search proceedings at Locker No. 1132, Alaknanda Vaults Pvt. Ltd, East of Kailash, jewellery amounting to Rs. 1,72,07,965/- and bullion amounting to Rs. 34,52,843/- was found from the same premises but not seized.

5.

The assessee explained the source of the aforesaid jewellery amounting to Rs.1,72,07,965/- and bullion amounting to Rs.34,52,843/- . The AO found that the opening balance of gold jewellery, including 22 carat gold coins as on 31.03.2006, was 358.87 grams, the value of which, as on 14.01.2022, comes out to be Rs. 15,48,446/-. As the assessee could not provide the source of this jewellery/bullion, the AO treated the jewellery amounting to Rs. 15,48,446/- as unexplained money u/s 69B of the Act and added back to the income during the year under consideration. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO.

6.

Aggrieved assessee is before us.

7.

We have heard the rival submissions and have carefully perused the materials on record. In the instant case, we find that the assessee has attempted to prove the entire source of opening balance of Gold of Page 4 of 7 &2167 /DEL/2025 Saket & Abhishek Bansal Vs JCIT [A.Y 2022-23] 358.87 gms as being proved from the books of account itself as it reflects as opening balance in the accounts as on 01.04.2006. Although the assessee, prima facie, appears to have discharged its onus of explaining source of gold of 358.87 gms, it’s contentions to prove the source, hardly deserves to be accepted in entirety especially when the AO found that the assessee has not furnished any evidence to corroborate the fact that the jewellery was pertaining to period prior to 2006. There was no wealth tax return which could show the said gold jewellery. On the other hand, the Revenue’s endeavour to disbelieve the assessee’s contention that the gold jewellery pertained to period prior to 2006, cannot be fully justified. In this factual matrix, there is some element of failure to explain some of the gold jewellery, cannot be ruled out. Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate, in larger interest of justice, that a lump- sum addition of 233.87 gms of gold jewellery only, valued at prevalent rate of Rs 4314.78 per gram as on 14.01.2022, would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent, so as to cover all loopholes. To the extent as above, the decision of the CIT(A) is sustained. The ground of appeal no 1 to 7 is partly allowed.

Page 5 of 7 &2167 /DEL/2025 Saket & Abhishek Bansal Vs JCIT [A.Y 2022-23]

8.

Similar facts have been considered by us in [supra]. The facts being mutatis mutandis similar to those of respectfully following the same, we allow the benefit of 61.36 gms of gold and direct the AO to bring to tax only 100 gms of gold jewellery only, valued at prevalent rate of Rs 4314.78 per gram as on 14.01.2022. To the extent as above, the decision of the CIT(A) is sustained. The ground 1 to 8 is decided accordingly.

9.

In the result, appeals of assessee in and 2167/DEL/2025 are partly allowed.

Order pronounced in open court on 26.08.2025.

More judgments on Section 69B

All 1,579 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →