CIT v. Mohinder Lal Haryani

269 CTR 466High Court2014#8615 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also reported as

307 ITR 348

Sections most often in play

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 1962Section 68Section 69A

Judgments citing CIT v. Mohinder Lal Haryani

JIGNA KUNDAN BHATT,VIRAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5265/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardcit Cen. Cir. 1(1), Jigna Kundan Bhatt R. No. 903, 9Th Floor, Plot No. 277, Kundan Pratistha Bhavan, M. Mansion, Agashi Road, Vs. K. Road, Mumbai- Virar (W), Dist-Thane, 400 020 Thane, Maharashtra- 401303 Pan/Gir No. Afdpb3867Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Subhodh Ratnaparkhi, Ld. Ar Revenue By Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.12.2025

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

…o adverse inference could be drawn. 23. Reliance was placed on the following judicial precedents to submit that jewellery found within the limits prescribed by CBDT Instruction No. 1916 cannot be treated as unexplained investment:  CIT v. Satya Narain Patni (269 CTR 466) (Raj.)  CIT v. RatanlalVyaparilal Jain (339 ITR 351) (Guj.)  Ashok Jain v. ACIT, ITA No. 6251/Mum/2016 (ITAT Mumbai) 10 Jigna Kundan Bhatt 24. It was submitted that the addition under section 69A is based on conjectures and ignores both contemporaneous evidence and settled judicial principles. Accordingly, the learned AR prayed for deletion…

BHAVESHBHAI AMULAKHBHAI SONANI,SURAT vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLLE-3, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 118/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.118/Srt/2022 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Bhaveshkumar Deputy Commissioner Of Amulakhbhai Sonani, A- Income-Tax, Central Vs 604, Sai Residency, Near Circle-3, Surat, 5Thfloor, Gajera School, Katargam, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Surat-395004 Gate, Surat-395001 Pan No: Apsps 0912 G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Ms. Chaitali Shah, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 03.05.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 17.07.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-4, Surat [For Short To As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 03.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2018- 19, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat / Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 28.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal:- Bhaveshkumar A Sonani “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In In Making An Addition Of Rs.16,32,732/- U/S 69A Of The Act Treating The Jewellery Found & Seized During The Cruse Of Search As Unexplained, On Erroneous Grounds Without Appreciating That The Same Is Fully Reflected In The Appellant’S & His Family Member’S Regular Books Of Accounts. Hence, The Impugned Addition As Confirmed By The Learned Cit(A) Needs To Be Deleted As Being Absolutely Erroneous, Incorrect, Illegal & Bad-In-Law.

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 69A

…in [2010[ 2 taxman.com 997 (Guj)/[2011] 339 ITR 351 (Guj), Ashok Chadha vs. ITO [2011] 14 taxmann.com. 57 (Del)/[2011] 202 Taxman 395 (Del), CIT Vs Satya Naraini Patni [2014] 46 taxmann.com 440 (Raj)/[2014] 224 Taxman 312 (Raj)/[2014] 366 ITR 325 (Raj)/[2014] 269 CTR 466 (Raj)[07.04.2014]; CIT Vs Ghanshyam Das Johri [2014[ 41 taxmann.com 295 (All); Kumkum Kanodia Vs DCIT, in ITA No.5260/Del/2014 dated 20.11.2018 and Ankit Manubhai Kachadiya vs. DCIT (2021] 131 taxmann.com 304 (Surat-Trib.) 10 Bhaveshkumar A Sonani 8. On the other hand, Ld. CIT-DR for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities and submi…

ACIT, CC- 26, , NEW DELHI vs. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 3956/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

…o addition ITA 2892 to 2894/D/2017 ITA 3952 to 3956/D/2017 can be made on account of jewellery which is within the tolerable limit stipulated in the aforesaid CBDT Instruction: - CIT V. Mohinder Lal Haryani: 307 ITR 348 (Del.) - CIT vs. Satya NarainPatni: 269 CTR 466 (Raj) - CIT vs. RatanlalVyaparilal Jain: 339 ITR 351 (Guj) - ACIT vs. Gopi Lal Mor: 21 SOT 29 (Jodh) - ACIT vs. Rameshchandra R. Patel: 89 ITD 203 (Ahd) 8.7 Further, in so far as the allegation of the assessing officer that the jewellery found short during the course of search could not be reconciled, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that som…

ACIT, CC- 26, , NEW DELHI vs. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 3955/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

…ollowing decision, where it has been held that no addition ITA 2892 to 2894/D/2017 ITA 3952 to 3956/D/2017 can be made on account of jewellery which is within the tolerable limit stipulated in the aforesaid CBDT Instruction: - CIT V. Mohinder Lal Haryani: 307 ITR 348 (Del.) - CIT vs. Satya NarainPatni: 269 CTR 466 (Raj) - CIT vs. RatanlalVyaparilal Jain: 339 ITR 351 (Guj) - ACIT vs. Gopi Lal Mor: 21 SOT 29 (Jodh) - ACIT vs. Rameshchandra R. Patel: 89 ITD 203 (Ahd) 8.7 Further, in so far as the allegation of the assessing officer that the jewellery found short during the course of search could not be reconcil…

ACIT, CC- 26, , NEW DELHI vs. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 3954/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

…ollowing decision, where it has been held that no addition ITA 2892 to 2894/D/2017 ITA 3952 to 3956/D/2017 can be made on account of jewellery which is within the tolerable limit stipulated in the aforesaid CBDT Instruction: - CIT V. Mohinder Lal Haryani: 307 ITR 348 (Del.) - CIT vs. Satya NarainPatni: 269 CTR 466 (Raj) - CIT vs. RatanlalVyaparilal Jain: 339 ITR 351 (Guj) - ACIT vs. Gopi Lal Mor: 21 SOT 29 (Jodh) - ACIT vs. Rameshchandra R. Patel: 89 ITD 203 (Ahd) 8.7 Further, in so far as the allegation of the assessing officer that the jewellery found short during the course of search could not be reconcil…

ACIT, CC- 26, , NEW DELHI vs. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 3953/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

…ollowing decision, where it has been held that no addition ITA 2892 to 2894/D/2017 ITA 3952 to 3956/D/2017 can be made on account of jewellery which is within the tolerable limit stipulated in the aforesaid CBDT Instruction: - CIT V. Mohinder Lal Haryani: 307 ITR 348 (Del.) - CIT vs. Satya NarainPatni: 269 CTR 466 (Raj) - CIT vs. RatanlalVyaparilal Jain: 339 ITR 351 (Guj) - ACIT vs. Gopi Lal Mor: 21 SOT 29 (Jodh) - ACIT vs. Rameshchandra R. Patel: 89 ITD 203 (Ahd) 8.7 Further, in so far as the allegation of the assessing officer that the jewellery found short during the course of search could not be reconcil…

ACIT, CC- 26, , NEW DELHI vs. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 3952/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

…ollowing decision, where it has been held that no addition ITA 2892 to 2894/D/2017 ITA 3952 to 3956/D/2017 can be made on account of jewellery which is within the tolerable limit stipulated in the aforesaid CBDT Instruction: - CIT V. Mohinder Lal Haryani: 307 ITR 348 (Del.) - CIT vs. Satya NarainPatni: 269 CTR 466 (Raj) - CIT vs. RatanlalVyaparilal Jain: 339 ITR 351 (Guj) - ACIT vs. Gopi Lal Mor: 21 SOT 29 (Jodh) - ACIT vs. Rameshchandra R. Patel: 89 ITD 203 (Ahd) 8.7 Further, in so far as the allegation of the assessing officer that the jewellery found short during the course of search could not be reconcil…

ACIT, CC- 26, , NEW DELHI vs. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 3951/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

…ollowing decision, where it has been held that no addition ITA 2892 to 2894/D/2017 ITA 3952 to 3956/D/2017 can be made on account of jewellery which is within the tolerable limit stipulated in the aforesaid CBDT Instruction: - CIT V. Mohinder Lal Haryani: 307 ITR 348 (Del.) - CIT vs. Satya NarainPatni: 269 CTR 466 (Raj) - CIT vs. RatanlalVyaparilal Jain: 339 ITR 351 (Guj) - ACIT vs. Gopi Lal Mor: 21 SOT 29 (Jodh) - ACIT vs. Rameshchandra R. Patel: 89 ITD 203 (Ahd) 8.7 Further, in so far as the allegation of the assessing officer that the jewellery found short during the course of search could not be reconcil…

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 2894/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

…o addition ITA 2892 to 2894/D/2017 ITA 3952 to 3956/D/2017 can be made on account of jewellery which is within the tolerable limit stipulated in the aforesaid CBDT Instruction: - CIT V. Mohinder Lal Haryani: 307 ITR 348 (Del.) - CIT vs. Satya NarainPatni: 269 CTR 466 (Raj) - CIT vs. RatanlalVyaparilal Jain: 339 ITR 351 (Guj) - ACIT vs. Gopi Lal Mor: 21 SOT 29 (Jodh) - ACIT vs. Rameshchandra R. Patel: 89 ITD 203 (Ahd) 8.7 Further, in so far as the allegation of the assessing officer that the jewellery found short during the course of search could not be reconciled, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that som…

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 2893/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

…ollowing decision, where it has been held that no addition ITA 2892 to 2894/D/2017 ITA 3952 to 3956/D/2017 can be made on account of jewellery which is within the tolerable limit stipulated in the aforesaid CBDT Instruction: - CIT V. Mohinder Lal Haryani: 307 ITR 348 (Del.) - CIT vs. Satya NarainPatni: 269 CTR 466 (Raj) - CIT vs. RatanlalVyaparilal Jain: 339 ITR 351 (Guj) - ACIT vs. Gopi Lal Mor: 21 SOT 29 (Jodh) - ACIT vs. Rameshchandra R. Patel: 89 ITD 203 (Ahd) 8.7 Further, in so far as the allegation of the assessing officer that the jewellery found short during the course of search could not be reconcil…

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 2892/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

…ollowing decision, where it has been held that no addition ITA 2892 to 2894/D/2017 ITA 3952 to 3956/D/2017 can be made on account of jewellery which is within the tolerable limit stipulated in the aforesaid CBDT Instruction: - CIT V. Mohinder Lal Haryani: 307 ITR 348 (Del.) - CIT vs. Satya NarainPatni: 269 CTR 466 (Raj) - CIT vs. RatanlalVyaparilal Jain: 339 ITR 351 (Guj) - ACIT vs. Gopi Lal Mor: 21 SOT 29 (Jodh) - ACIT vs. Rameshchandra R. Patel: 89 ITD 203 (Ahd) 8.7 Further, in so far as the allegation of the assessing officer that the jewellery found short during the course of search could not be reconcil…

SMT. RUCHI MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2811/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Hardik Bedi, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Paramita Tripathi, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 69A

…finding that jewellery acquired had held to be income from undisclosed sources was out of a specific sources not declared by the appellants to revenue. Reliance was placed on the following judgments: i) 50 SOT 629 (Indore) Smt. Shankutala Somani vs. ITO) ii) 307 ITR 348 (Del) CIT v. Mohinder Lal Haryani iii) 69 ITD 218 (Chd) (TM) Dr. (Mrs.) Kamlesh Datta v. ACIT iv) 80 TTJ 945 (Pune) ACIT vs. P.C. Mundra 7. On the other hand, the ld. DR had relied upon the orders of the authorities below and requested that contention of the assessees be rejected in view of the following facts: i) Jewellery weighing 3299.83 g…

SMT. RADHA MITAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2810/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Hardik Bedi, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Paramita Tripathi, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 69A

…finding that jewellery acquired had held to be income from undisclosed sources was out of a specific sources not declared by the appellants to revenue. Reliance was placed on the following judgments: i) 50 SOT 629 (Indore) Smt. Shankutala Somani vs. ITO) ii) 307 ITR 348 (Del) CIT v. Mohinder Lal Haryani iii) 69 ITD 218 (Chd) (TM) Dr. (Mrs.) Kamlesh Datta v. ACIT iv) 80 TTJ 945 (Pune) ACIT vs. P.C. Mundra 7. On the other hand, the ld. DR had relied upon the orders of the authorities below and requested that contention of the assessees be rejected in view of the following facts: i) Jewellery weighing 3299.83 g…

CIT v. Mohinder Lal Haryani (269 CTR 466) — Cited in 13 Judgments | BharatTax