What is Pati Devi v. ITO authority for?

Jewellery up to prescribed limits (e.g., 500 grams for a married lady, 100 grams for a male member, as per CBDT Instruction No. 1916) is presumed to be explained. The revenue must rebut this presumption to treat such jewellery as unexplained.

How many judgments cite Pati Devi v. ITO?

27 judgments on BharatTax cite Pati Devi v. ITO (240 ITR 727), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Pati Devi v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 69A.

Pati Devi v. ITO (240 ITR 727)

VINOD KUMAR BHATIA,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3264/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2018-19]

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…in the case of CIT vs Satya Narain Patni reported in 366 ITR 325 (Raj.), Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain reported in 339 ITR 351 (Guj.) and Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Patni Devi vs ITO reported in 240 ITR 727 (Kar.) that the presumption in regard to the above circular goes in favour of the assessee that it is presumed that the jewellery to the extent as mentioned in the Circular is treated as explain because the presumption has not rebutted in the present case by the Revenue. Hence, we treat this jewellery as explained and delete the addition. 7. In…

SUNIL KUMAR GATTANI,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, JAIPUR

In the result ground no. 7

ITA 1142/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 115BSection 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

…per invoices would be as under:\nGold Jewellery\n100 x 3 =\n300 [male members]\n500 x 1 =\n500 [married female members]\nTotal\n800 gms.\nThis view of the CBDT has been approved by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court\nin the case of Pati Devi Vs. ITO reported in 240 ITR 727. The Hon'ble Rajasthan\nHigh Court has also taken the view that no addition could be made to the extent\nof the jewellery covered by the above stated instructions issued by CBDT in this\nregard in the case of CIT Vs. Kailash Chand Sharma reported in 146 Taxman\n376 more particularly when no wealth tax returns were filed, the observations of\nthe…

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)

….1994 has held that “the jewellery of 500 grams in respect of married lady and 100 gram for male member should be treated 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 expl…

SREENIVASULU BALISETTY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 852/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Md.Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Karthiik Manickam, DR

…urpose of the Act. In the case of CIT vs. Ghanshyam Das Johri [2014] 41 taxmann.com 295 (Allahabad), Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held that if one goes with CBDT Instruction No. 1916, dated 11-5-1994 and ratio laid down in case of Smt. Pati Devi v. ITO [1999] 240 ITR 727 (Kar.) then a married lady of reputed family is expected to own 500 gm. ornaments. In the case of CIT Vs. Satya Narain Patni [2014] 46taxmann.com440 (Rajasthan), Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court held that,- “…….. 12. It is true that the circular of the CBDT, referred to supra dt. 11/05/1994 only refers to the jewellery to the extent of 500 gms per ma…

SRI. PRATAP KUNDA,HYDERABAD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1040/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234

…nts per married lady, 250 gms per unmarried lady, 100 gms per male member of the family were directed not to be Page 11 seized. He also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Smt. Pati Devi vs. ITO & Anr. reported in (1999) 240 ITR 727 wherein Hon’ble Court has held this instruction to be retrospective in nature and that the benefit has to be given to the extent mentioned therein. Hon’ble Court also held that it is not the value which is increased but it is the weight which is to be considered reasonable looking into the social circumstances prevailing in our country. On the co…

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)

…jewellery taken into account the quantity of jewellery to the family members. Therefore, to that extent, it can be safely 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…

SHRI VIVEK CHOUHAN,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT (CENTRAL) II, BHOPAL

ITA 829/IND/2017[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 Oct 2020

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

Section 132Section 69C

…by the Board, any middle class Indian family may be having jewellery and gold jewellery to that extent. Hence addition can be made on that count". Similar view is also expressed by the Hon 'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Smt. Pati Devi vs ITO (1999) 240 ITR 727(Kar}. Conclusion: The explanation of the assessee has been considered and same is found to be not acceptable for the following reasons:- I.The assessee has not submitted any item wise details of the above jewellery found from residence and locker in the name of assessee, his wife Smt Jyotsana Chouhan and other family members. II. The assessee ha…

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, SURAT vs. SHRI RAMESH L. POLRA,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2320/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No.2320 & 2290/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 Vs. 1. Ramesh Laljibhai Polra, 1. The Deputy Commissioner 11, Haridarshan Society, Of Income Tax, Gajera School Circle, Central Circle-2, Surat. Surat. [Pan: Adlpp 8395 D] 2. Ramesh Laljibhai Polra, 2. The Deputy 11, Haridarshan Society, Commissioner Of Income Gajera School Circle, Surat. Tax,Central Circle-2, [Pan: Adlpp 8395 D] Surat. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 54BSection 69Section 69A

…the extent of jewellery stated in the circular stands explained. Such view was taken by the Hon’ble High Ramesh Laljibhai Polra v. DCIT, Cen. Cir-2, Surat /I.T.A. No’s 2320 & 2290/AHD/2016/A.Y.2013-14 Page 24 of 26 Court in the case of Smt.Pati Devi Vs. ITO 240 ITR 727. However, the AO has not granted any benefit to the assessee on the proposition of the above Board Instruction, however, the ld.CIT(A) has considered the same but considered Rs.3 lakhs of diamond jewellery as unexplained whereas diamond jewellery is part of gold jewellery, hence following the Board Instruction No.1916, we are of the considered op…

SHRI RAMESH LALJIBHAI POLRA,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2290/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No.2320 & 2290/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 Vs. 1. Ramesh Laljibhai Polra, 1. The Deputy Commissioner 11, Haridarshan Society, Of Income Tax, Gajera School Circle, Central Circle-2, Surat. Surat. [Pan: Adlpp 8395 D] 2. Ramesh Laljibhai Polra, 2. The Deputy 11, Haridarshan Society, Commissioner Of Income Gajera School Circle, Surat. Tax,Central Circle-2, [Pan: Adlpp 8395 D] Surat. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 54BSection 69Section 69A

…the extent of jewellery stated in the circular stands explained. Such view was taken by the Hon’ble High Ramesh Laljibhai Polra v. DCIT, Cen. Cir-2, Surat /I.T.A. No’s 2320 & 2290/AHD/2016/A.Y.2013-14 Page 24 of 26 Court in the case of Smt.Pati Devi Vs. ITO 240 ITR 727. However, the AO has not granted any benefit to the assessee on the proposition of the above Board Instruction, however, the ld.CIT(A) has considered the same but considered Rs.3 lakhs of diamond jewellery as unexplained whereas diamond jewellery is part of gold jewellery, hence following the Board Instruction No.1916, we are of the considered op…

ANIL KHILWANI,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) II, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in

ITA 632/IND/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69ASection 69B

…s stated that as per instruction No.1916 dated 11.5.94, the set off should be given to the assessee to the extent of 1600gms. The reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Smt. Pati Devi Vs. ITO and Another 240 ITR 727, wherein it has been held that benefit of instruction has to be given to the assessee. Respectfully following the same, we hereby direct the A.O. to delete the addition if it is found in accordance with the [IT(SS)A Nos.239 to 244/Ind/2017 & ITA 632/Ind/2017] [Shri Anil Khilwani, Bhopal] instruction No.1916 dated 11.5.1994. This ground of the…