CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain

339 ITR 351High Court2011#945 most cited

What is CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain authority for?

Jewellery found within the CBDT prescribed limits (500g for married women, 250g for unmarried women, 100g for men) cannot be seized, even if not fully explained. However, its value can be added as undisclosed income under Section 69B if the taxpayer fails to prove its source.

113

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain · 339 ITR 351 · unexplained jewellery · CBDT Instruction 1916 · jewellery seizure limits · undisclosed investment · Section 69B · Section 115BBE · search and seizure assessment · 500g married women jewellery · 100g men jewellery

Also reported as

235 CTR 568

Sections most often in play

Section 153CSection 143(3)Section 144Section 115BBESection 153ASection 292CSection 132Section 153D

Issues it is cited on

section 158bdincome tax settlement commissionsection 144asection 269ssunexplained jewelleryspecified authoritysection 292cblock periodsection 158bsection 153a(1)section 292section 158

Judgments citing CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain

Jigna Kundan Bhatt, Virar vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), 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

…laced 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 of the addition of Rs. 57,83,972/-. 25. The learned D…

Amar Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2007/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &
Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

…oted that the submission field by the assessee could not explain the source of the jewellery purchase and hence, it can be added as undisclosed income to the total income of the assessee. 9.2.4. Reliance can be placed on "CIT v. RatanlalVyaparilal Jain (2011) 339 ITR 351 (Guj HC)" where The Gujarat High Court held that "jewelry within the limits prescribed by the CBDT Circular (500g for married women, 250 g for unmarried women, 100 g for men) cannot be seized, even if not fully explained. It can only be added as undisclosed income if the taxpayer fails to prove its source." In the absence of assessee's explanatio…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Amar Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1499/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &
Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

…oted that the submission field by the assessee could not explain the source of the jewellery purchase and hence, it can be added as undisclosed income to the total income of the assessee. 9.2.4. Reliance can be placed on "CIT v. RatanlalVyaparilal Jain (2011) 339 ITR 351 (Guj HC)" where The Gujarat High Court held that "jewelry within the limits prescribed by the CBDT Circular (500g for married women, 250 g for unmarried women, 100 g for men) cannot be seized, even if not fully explained. It can only be added as undisclosed income if the taxpayer fails to prove its source." In the absence of assessee's explanatio…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Amar Kumar Agarawal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1498/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &
Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

…oted that the submission field by the assessee could not explain the source of the jewellery purchase and hence, it can be added as undisclosed income to the total income of the assessee. 9.2.4. Reliance can be placed on "CIT v. RatanlalVyaparilal Jain (2011) 339 ITR 351 (Guj HC)" where The Gujarat High Court held that "jewelry within the limits prescribed by the CBDT Circular (500g for married women, 250 g for unmarried women, 100 g for men) cannot be seized, even if not fully explained. It can only be added as undisclosed income if the taxpayer fails to prove its source." In the absence of assessee's explanatio…

Deputy Commssioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Amar Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1497/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &
Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

…oted that the submission field by the assessee could not explain the source of the jewellery purchase and hence, it can be added as undisclosed income to the total income of the assessee. 9.2.4. Reliance can be placed on "CIT v. RatanlalVyaparilal Jain (2011) 339 ITR 351 (Guj HC)" where The Gujarat High Court held that "jewelry within the limits prescribed by the CBDT Circular (500g for married women, 250 g for unmarried women, 100 g for men) cannot be seized, even if not fully explained. It can only be added as undisclosed income if the taxpayer fails to prove its source." In the absence of assessee's explanatio…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Amar Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1440/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &
Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

…oted that the submission field by the assessee could not explain the source of the jewellery purchase and hence, it can be added as undisclosed income to the total income of the assessee. 9.2.4. Reliance can be placed on "CIT v. RatanlalVyaparilal Jain (2011) 339 ITR 351 (Guj HC)" where The Gujarat High Court held that "jewelry within the limits prescribed by the CBDT Circular (500g for married women, 250 g for unmarried women, 100 g for men) cannot be seized, even if not fully explained. It can only be added as undisclosed income if the taxpayer fails to prove its source." In the absence of assessee's explanatio…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Surat vs. Vikas Nangalia, Surat

In the result, appeal of revenue and CO of assessee are dismissed

ITA 972/SRT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.972/Srt/2024& Assessment Year: 2020-21 (Physical Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Vikas Nangalia बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, D-1112, Canal Road, Surya Green Vs. Surat Room No.508, Majura View, Vesu, Surat-395 007 Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpn 1361 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) ""ा"ेप सं /Co No.26/Srt/2024 (A/O Ita No.972/Srt/2024) Assessment Year: 2020-21 Vikas Nangalia Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ D-1112, Canal Road, Surya Green Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. View, Vesu, Surat-395 007 Surat Room No.508, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpn 1361 L (Co-Objector) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.848/Srt/2024& Assessment Year: 2021-22 Deputy Commissioner Of Vikas Nangalia बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, D-1112, Canal Road, Surya Green Vs. Surat Room No.508, Majura View, Vesu, Surat-395 007 Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpn 1361 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Ramesh Malpani, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

…& 848/Srt/2024 A.Ys 20-21 & 21-22 Vikas Nangalia 22. On other hand, the Ld. AR reiterated the same arguments as were made before the CIT(A). The Ld. AR also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain, 339 ITR 351 (Guj) to contend that the jewellery as per CBDT Instruction no. 1916 dated 11.05.1994 has to be considered as explained in assessment proceeding also. Regarding non-submission of the above evidences at the time of search proceedings, Ld. AR again submitted that the assessee was under tremendous mental pressure because of hospitalization of his so…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate vs. Vikas Nangalia, Vesu Surat, Gujarat

In the result, appeal of revenue and CO of assessee are dismissed

ITA 848/SRT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.972/Srt/2024& Assessment Year: 2020-21 (Physical Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Vikas Nangalia बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, D-1112, Canal Road, Surya Green Vs. Surat Room No.508, Majura View, Vesu, Surat-395 007 Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpn 1361 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) ""ा"ेप सं /Co No.26/Srt/2024 (A/O Ita No.972/Srt/2024) Assessment Year: 2020-21 Vikas Nangalia Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ D-1112, Canal Road, Surya Green Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. View, Vesu, Surat-395 007 Surat Room No.508, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpn 1361 L (Co-Objector) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.848/Srt/2024& Assessment Year: 2021-22 Deputy Commissioner Of Vikas Nangalia बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, D-1112, Canal Road, Surya Green Vs. Surat Room No.508, Majura View, Vesu, Surat-395 007 Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpn 1361 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Ramesh Malpani, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

…& 848/Srt/2024 A.Ys 20-21 & 21-22 Vikas Nangalia 22. On other hand, the Ld. AR reiterated the same arguments as were made before the CIT(A). The Ld. AR also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain, 339 ITR 351 (Guj) to contend that the jewellery as per CBDT Instruction no. 1916 dated 11.05.1994 has to be considered as explained in assessment proceeding also. Regarding non-submission of the above evidences at the time of search proceedings, Ld. AR again submitted that the assessee was under tremendous mental pressure because of hospitalization of his so…

Smt. Dayawanti, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1639/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Smt. Sangeeta Sawhney, Vs Acit, 6, Link Road, Jangpura Central Circle-7, Extension, New Delhi-110024 New Delhi Pan-Abjps6408A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2012-13] Smt. Sangeeta Sawhney, Vs Dcit, 6, Link Road, Jangpura Central Circle-7, Extension, New Delhi-110024 New Delhi Pan-Abjps6408A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.12.2016 & 30.12.2016 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-25, Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.14/15-16/21/16-17 & Appeal No.278/15-16/28/16-17 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Penalty Order Dated 21.09.2015 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) R.W.S 274 Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13 Respectively.

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…ted as explained”. This view is supported by the judgement of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Smt. Pati Devi vs ITO & Anr. [1999] 240 ITR 727 (Kar.) and further by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ratan Lal Vyapari Lal Jain (2011) 339 ITR 351 (Guj). Thus, by respectfully following the ITA No.1646 & 1639/Del/2017 judgement of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and Gujarat High Court (supra), we hold that 700 grams of jewellery in terms of CBDT instruction can be held as explained. 24. Thus, the total jewellery found of 3619.170 grams during the course of search, following jewelry could be h…

Avinash Aradhya, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(2), Bangalore, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1418/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 69A

…1916 needs to be given again to seized jewellery of 1511.65 gms which remains unexplained is untenable. In light of the above discussion, it is pertinent to mention that rationale laid down by Honorable High Courts in case of CIT vs Ratanlal Vyapari lal jain 339 ITR 351, CIT vs Satya Narain Patni 366 ITR 325 are not applicable to the facts of the case in hand.” 23.3 We also note that the finding of the learned CIT(A) is also contradictory. As such the learned CIT(A) in para 8.5 of his order held that the assessee cannot take shelter under circular 1916 issued by the CBDT. The said finding of the learned CIT(A)…

Chethan Narayan, Hassan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1109/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S.V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 234Section 250Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2018-19 Chethan Narayan, The Dy. Commissioner of 65/14, Gangadhareswara Income Tax, Nilaya, Vs. Central Circle-1[4], B.M Road, Near SJP Park, Bengaluru. Hassan – 573 201. PAN – ABLPN 6863 E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri S.V Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 05.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 18.04.2024 O R D E R PER SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This is an appeal fil…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Kandiah Muthukrishnan, Chennai

ITA 1113/CHNY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri P.M. Kathir (Advocate) and Ms. S
Section 143(3)Section 69A

…’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Satya Narain Patni (46 Taxmann.com 440), the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Ghanshyam Das Johri (41 Taxmann.com 295); the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain (339 ITR 351). The assessee also brought on record the fact that it admitted income of Rs.138.47 Lacs during AYs 2014-15 to 2020-21. Similarly, the assessee’s wife reflected income of Rs.76.92 Lacs during AYs 2016-17 to 2020-21 to support the submissions that it had sufficient means to acquire the jewellery. 3.3 The Ld. CIT(A) considered the decision of Hon’b…

Bhaveshbhai Amulakhbhai Sonani, Surat vs. DCIT, Central Circlle-3, 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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT “SMC” BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.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 hear…

Tara Kabra, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-1(3), Mumbai

ITA 1319/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1319/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2017-18) Tara Kabra Dcit, Cc-1(3) 2202, Aspean Mahindra Roomno.905, 9Th Floor, Eminente, S V Road Near Old Cgo Building, Annexe बिधम/ Patekar College, Goregaon M. K. Road, Vs. West, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 062 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Acbpk7381F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT
Section 132

…s of the CBDT Circular (i.e. instruction no. 1916 dated 11.05.1994) has been granted. Further, on perusal of record we find that the Applicant had placed on record the decision of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ratanlal Vyaprilal Jain (2011) 339 ITR 351 (Guj. HC) and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of M. S. Agarwal (HUF) (2008) 11 DTR 169 (MP) (HC) dealing with the applicability of Instruction No.1916 dated 11.05.1994. Therefore, we agree with the contention of the Applicant that a mistake apparent on record, arising from non-consideration of the aforesaid order/judgments, has crep…

Mahesh K Faria, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD-II) Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3349/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3349/मुं/2013 ("न.व. 2008-09) Mahesh K. Faria, 71/73, 4Th Floor, Bazar Gate Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaapf-0587-F ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Osd-Ii), Central Range - 7 Mumbai. .....""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Hiral Sejpal ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Achal Sharma, Cit –Dr & Ms. Vranda U Matkari-Sr.Ar सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/03/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Ms. Hiral SejpalFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma, CIT –DR &
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153Section 153A

…llery found at the premises of the assessee during search ( the details of jewellery are at page 37 of the Paper Book). In support of her submissions the ld.Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain,339 ITR 351 (Guj) (ii) CIT vs. Satyanarayan Patni,366 ITR 325 (Raj) 4.3 In respect of ground No.4, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that addition on account of difference in stock has been made merely on the presumption that the assessee has under reported the sales. 4.4 In respect of ground No.5 the ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that list…

The Dy CIT, Central Circle-6(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Mehul Johnson, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1647/MUM/2020[2017-78]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2017-78

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1647/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Mehul Johnson, Dcit Cen. Cir. 6(4), 2808, 28Th Floor, R. No. 1925, 19Th Imperial Tower, M P Floor, Air India बिधम/ Mill’S Compound, Building, Nariman Vs. Tardeo, Point, Mumbai-400 034 Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Abbpj3414H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Mahesh Akhade, Ld. Dr By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent : Shri Gautam Jain, Ld. Ar By सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 11.05.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 19.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 07.07.2020, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-54, Mumbai For The Quantum Appeal Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3)

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh AkhadeFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Jain, Ld
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…y presumed that jewelleries stated in the circular stands explained and he relied on the following judgments listed as below:- 2 15.2.199 240 ITR 727 (Kar) Smt. Pati Devi vs. ITO 9 3 25.10.20 41 taxmann.com 295 (All) CIT vs. Ghanshyam Das Johri 13 4 19.7.201 339 ITR 351(Guj) CIT vs. Ratanlal vs. Yaparilal Jain 0 5 31.1.201 463/Mum/2012DCIT vs. Sh. Haroon Mohd. Unni. In ITA 4 No. 6 7.4.2014 366 ITR 325 (Raj) CIT vs. Satya Narain Patni 7 4.5.2018 170 ITD 580 (Del-Trib.) Vibhu Aggarwal vs. DCIT 6 9.3.2018 63 ITR (Trib) 594 (Delhi) Ritu Bajaj vs. DCIT 7 4.6.2020 1 84 ITD 329 (Cuttack Bench) N. Raja vs. ACIT 8 20.2.2…

The DCIT, (Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Dipak Kalani, Indore

In the result, revenue’s appeals in IT(SS)A 104

ITA 1045/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ourse of the search, the various courts have held that credit to the above extent has to be given to the assessee unless the revenue shows anything to the contrary. Reliance is placed on the following decisions:- a) CIT Alwar, vs. Satya Narayan Patni, (2014) 366 ITR 325 (Rajasthan) b) CIT (Central), Kanpur vs. Ghanshyam Johri (2014) 41 taxman.com 295 (Allahabad) c) CIT vs. M.S Agrawal (HUF) & Ors. (2010) 236 CTR 0538 (M.P.) 4.4 The approach adopted by the various courts in interpreting the said Instruction and giving benefit to the assessee, even for explaining the source in respect of the jewellery being held…

The DCIT, (Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Pankaj Kalani, Indore

In the result, revenue’s appeals in IT(SS)A 104

ITA 1044/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ourse of the search, the various courts have held that credit to the above extent has to be given to the assessee unless the revenue shows anything to the contrary. Reliance is placed on the following decisions:- a) CIT Alwar, vs. Satya Narayan Patni, (2014) 366 ITR 325 (Rajasthan) b) CIT (Central), Kanpur vs. Ghanshyam Johri (2014) 41 taxman.com 295 (Allahabad) c) CIT vs. M.S Agrawal (HUF) & Ors. (2010) 236 CTR 0538 (M.P.) 4.4 The approach adopted by the various courts in interpreting the said Instruction and giving benefit to the assessee, even for explaining the source in respect of the jewellery being held…

Sh. Suresh Bansal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 833/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.-833/Del/2017 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Suresh Bansal, Vs. DCIT c/o M/s RRA tax India, Central circle-II, D-28, South extension, Faridabad part-1, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN No. AKYPB5000H Appellant Respondent Assessee by Dr Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Somil Agrawal, advocates Revenue by Sh. HK Choudhary, CIT (DR) Date of hearing: 28/10/2021 Pronouncement on 03/11/2021 ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM Aggrieved by the order dated 21/12/2016 passed by the lea…

Raju Bansal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- II, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7066/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 271A

…wealth-tax, gold jewellery and ornaments to the extent of 500 gms. per married lady, 250 gms. per unmarried lady and 100 gms. per male member of the family, need not be seized. We find that the Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain 339 ITR 351 (Guj) has held that though the CBDT Circular No.1916 dated 11th May 1994 has been issued for the purpose of non seizure of jewellery during the course of search but unless the Revenue shows anything to the contrary, it can safely be presumed that source to the extent of jewellery stated in the circular stands explained. 9. In the present case if…