Pati Devi v. ITO

240 ITR 727High Court1999#4319 most cited

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.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Pati Devi v. ITO · 240 ITR 727 · section 143(3) · section 69A · unexplained jewellery · CBDT instruction 1916 · explained jewellery · presumption · burden of proof · married lady

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

unexplained jewellerychildsection 132(4)section 69asection 69prescribedpersonsection 143(3)india

Judgments citing Pati Devi v. ITO

Smt. Beena Gutgutia, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 2414/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 68

…stom in Hindu family in the country. The CBDT in their instruction No. 1918 dated 11.5.1994 relating to seizure of jewellery have laid down specific guidelines. 2.3.1 In several judicial pronouncements including in the cases of Smt. Pati Devi v ITO & Another 240 ITR 727 (Kar), and CIT v Kailash Chandra Sharma 146 Taxmann 376 (Raj) it has been held that the issue regarding acquisition of jewellery has to be decided keeping in mind the benefits allowed in the afore cited CBDT Instruction No. 1916 as well as the status of the family of the assessee. In view of the above judicial pronouncements, benefit of 500 grams…

S.C. Verma, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 3763/DEL/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Ms Suchitra Kamble, Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11 S.C. Verma, Vs. Acit, H.No.34, 1St Floor, Cent. Circle 1, Greater Kailash-I, Faridabad. New Delhi. Pan: Aaepv1937D Assessment Year : 2010-11 Acit, Vs. S.C. Verma, H.No.34, 1St Floor, Cent. Circle 1, Faridabad Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi. Pan: Aaepv1937D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Kapoor, Advocate Department By : Shri Dev Jyoty Dass, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.05.2016 Order Per R.S. Syal, Am: These Two Cross Appeals – One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue – Arise Out Of The Order Passed By The Cit(A) On 25.5.2012 In Relation To The Assessment Year 2010-11. Ita Nos.3757 & 3763/Del/2012

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dev Jyoty Dass, CIT, DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)

…T vs. Satyanarain Patni (2014) 366 ITR 325 (Raj). Similar view was earlier taken by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Kailash Chand Sharma (2015) 146 Taxmann 376 (Raj). The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Smt. Pati Devi vs. ITO and Another (1999) 240 ITR 727 (Kar.) has held that CBDT Instruction dated 11 May, 1994 directing the authorities not to seize specified quantities of gold jewellery applies qua the addition as well. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court CIT vs. Ratan Lal Vyapari Lal Jain (2011) 339 ITR 351 (Guj) has also has held that Instruction No.1916 can be safely applied in presuming that t…

ACIT, Faridabad vs. Sh. S.C. Verma, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 3757/DEL/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Ms Suchitra Kamble, Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11 S.C. Verma, Vs. Acit, H.No.34, 1St Floor, Cent. Circle 1, Greater Kailash-I, Faridabad. New Delhi. Pan: Aaepv1937D Assessment Year : 2010-11 Acit, Vs. S.C. Verma, H.No.34, 1St Floor, Cent. Circle 1, Faridabad Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi. Pan: Aaepv1937D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Kapoor, Advocate Department By : Shri Dev Jyoty Dass, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.05.2016 Order Per R.S. Syal, Am: These Two Cross Appeals – One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue – Arise Out Of The Order Passed By The Cit(A) On 25.5.2012 In Relation To The Assessment Year 2010-11. Ita Nos.3757 & 3763/Del/2012

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dev Jyoty Dass, CIT, DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)

…T vs. Satyanarain Patni (2014) 366 ITR 325 (Raj). Similar view was earlier taken by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Kailash Chand Sharma (2015) 146 Taxmann 376 (Raj). The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Smt. Pati Devi vs. ITO and Another (1999) 240 ITR 727 (Kar.) has held that CBDT Instruction dated 11 May, 1994 directing the authorities not to seize specified quantities of gold jewellery applies qua the addition as well. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court CIT vs. Ratan Lal Vyapari Lal Jain (2011) 339 ITR 351 (Guj) has also has held that Instruction No.1916 can be safely applied in presuming that t…

ACIT, Meerut vs. Shri Mukesh Joshi, Noida

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3152/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.O.P.Kant

Section 132Section 153A

…(2010) 45 DTR (Guj.) 290; Dr. Sushi I Rastogi Vs Director of Investigations, Income Tax Department (2003) 260 ITR 249 (AIl.); CIT Vs M.S. Agrawal (HUF) (2008) 11 DTR (MP) 169; CIT Vs Kailash Chand Sharma (2005) 198 CTR (Raj.) 201; Smt. Pati Devi Vs ITa (1999) 240 ITR 727 (Kam.); DCIT Vs Smt. Jayita Bose (2004) 3 SOT 525 (Kolkata); Smt. Sulochana Devi Jaiswal Vs DCIT (2004) 90 TTJ (Jab) 974; Jai Kumar Jain Vs ACIT (2006)' 99 TTJ (Jp) 744; and ACIT Vs Gopi Lal Mor (2007) 107 TTJ (Jd) 510. It is undisputed that at the time of search the appellant was living with his wife and three unmarried daughters; and total jewe…

ACIT, Meerut vs. Shri Mukesh Joshi, Noida

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3151/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.O.P.Kant

Section 132Section 153A

…(2010) 45 DTR (Guj.) 290; Dr. Sushi I Rastogi Vs Director of Investigations, Income Tax Department (2003) 260 ITR 249 (AIl.); CIT Vs M.S. Agrawal (HUF) (2008) 11 DTR (MP) 169; CIT Vs Kailash Chand Sharma (2005) 198 CTR (Raj.) 201; Smt. Pati Devi Vs ITa (1999) 240 ITR 727 (Kam.); DCIT Vs Smt. Jayita Bose (2004) 3 SOT 525 (Kolkata); Smt. Sulochana Devi Jaiswal Vs DCIT (2004) 90 TTJ (Jab) 974; Jai Kumar Jain Vs ACIT (2006)' 99 TTJ (Jp) 744; and ACIT Vs Gopi Lal Mor (2007) 107 TTJ (Jd) 510. It is undisputed that at the time of search the appellant was living with his wife and three unmarried daughters; and total jewe…

ACIT, Meerut vs. Shri Mukesh Joshi, Noida

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3150/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.O.P.Kant

Section 132Section 153A

…(2010) 45 DTR (Guj.) 290; Dr. Sushi I Rastogi Vs Director of Investigations, Income Tax Department (2003) 260 ITR 249 (AIl.); CIT Vs M.S. Agrawal (HUF) (2008) 11 DTR (MP) 169; CIT Vs Kailash Chand Sharma (2005) 198 CTR (Raj.) 201; Smt. Pati Devi Vs ITa (1999) 240 ITR 727 (Kam.); DCIT Vs Smt. Jayita Bose (2004) 3 SOT 525 (Kolkata); Smt. Sulochana Devi Jaiswal Vs DCIT (2004) 90 TTJ (Jab) 974; Jai Kumar Jain Vs ACIT (2006)' 99 TTJ (Jp) 744; and ACIT Vs Gopi Lal Mor (2007) 107 TTJ (Jd) 510. It is undisputed that at the time of search the appellant was living with his wife and three unmarried daughters; and total jewe…

M. Sushil Kumar, Kgf vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 644/BANG/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2015AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Naginchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Rebella, Asst.CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…e, it is narrated that the assessee also made a claim of allowance of 500 grams as ancestral jewellery, which is no where provided for in the instruction 1916”. The AO further held that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pati Devi (240 ITR 727) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The wealth tax return and the claim of the assessee that the gold ITA No.644 & SP No.87(B)/2014 jewellery weighing 1390 grams held by Smt.Saritha Bai, is also not acceptable on the ground that the wealth tax return in the name of Smt.Saritha Bai, for the assessment year 2012-2013 was filed o…