Vibhu Aggarwal v. DCIT

170 ITD 580Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2018#8810 most cited

What is Vibhu Aggarwal v. DCIT authority for?

The addition of unexplained jewellery found during a search is not warranted if the excess amount is nominal and reasonable considering the assessee's family background, status, and customary practices, in line with CBDT Instruction No. 1916.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Vibhu Aggarwal v. DCIT · 170 ITD 580 · section 69A · unexplained jewellery · CBDT Instruction No. 1916 · reasonable jewellery · search and seizure · family background · status · customary practices

Issues it is cited on

unexplained jewellerychildsection 132(4)unexplained investmentundisclosed incomesection 132section 153section 153asearch and seizuresection 69asection 69section 143(2)

Judgments citing Vibhu Aggarwal v. DCIT

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

…dated 11.05.1994, deleted the addition – Whether Tribunal was justified – Held, Yes.” Further reliance is placed on the following decision: Vibhu Aggarwal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, CC-06, New Delhi [2018] 93 taxmann.com 275 (Delhi - Trib.)/[2018] 170 ITD 580 (Delhi - Trib.)[04- 05-2018] Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Unexplained moneys (Jewellery) Assessment year 2011-12 - During search at assessee's residential premises, Jewellery of 2531.5 gms. was found - Assessing Officer had given assessee benefit of 950 gms. on account of wife and two children and balance was added as unexplained inve…

Ajay Data, Alwar vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income - Tax, Central, Alwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1183/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 250Section 69A

…ITO 69 DTR 82 where gold jewellery weighing 906 gms found in search was held to be not substantial as being ‘StriDhan’ of the assessee’s wife and accordingly addition u/s 69A was deleted. Again Hon’ble ITAT Delhi Bench in case of VibhuAggarwal Vs. DCIT (2018) 170 ITD 580 where jewellery of 2531.50 gms was found at the assessee’s residential premises, considered the same as reasonable by holding that in view of CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dt. 11th May, 1994, the excess jewellery found in the case of assessee, his parents, his wife, their children and the HUF was very nominal and was very much reasonable keeping in m…

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)

…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 20.2.202 182 ITD 55 (Jaipur Bench) Ram Prakash Mahawar vs. 0 DCIT 15 I.T.A. No. 1647/Mum/2020 Shri Mehul Johnson 9 22.9.202 60 CCH 69 (Mum) Jaysing Laxman Rao Deshmukh vs. 0 DCIT 10 28.1.202 61…

Panna Lal Kumawat, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

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

ITA 84/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Ms Manisha Chandra (CIT)
Section 132(4)Section 250(1)Section 68Section 69

…DTR 82 where gold jewellery weighing 906 gms found in search was held to be not substantial as being 'Stri Dhan' of the assessee's wife and accordingly addition u/s 69A was deleted. Again the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench in case of Vibhu Aggarwal Vs. DCIT (2018) 170 ITD 580 where jewellery of 2531.50 gms was found at the assessee's residential premises, considered the same as reasonable by holding that in view of CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dt. 11th May, 1994, the excess jewellery found in the case of assessee, his parents, his wife, their children and the HUF was very nominal and was very much reasonable keeping in m…

DCIT, CC-3, Jaipur vs. Shri Panna Lal Kumawat, Jaipur

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

ITA 165/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Ms Manisha Chandra (CIT)
Section 132(4)Section 250(1)Section 68Section 69

…DTR 82 where gold jewellery weighing 906 gms found in search was held to be not substantial as being 'Stri Dhan' of the assessee's wife and accordingly addition u/s 69A was deleted. Again the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench in case of Vibhu Aggarwal Vs. DCIT (2018) 170 ITD 580 where jewellery of 2531.50 gms was found at the assessee's residential premises, considered the same as reasonable by holding that in view of CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dt. 11th May, 1994, the excess jewellery found in the case of assessee, his parents, his wife, their children and the HUF was very nominal and was very much reasonable keeping in m…

ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar vs. Shri Babu Lal Data, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1232/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: S. Naiyer Ali Najmi, CIT
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 153A

…DTR 82 where gold jewellery weighing 906 gms found in search was held to be not substantial as being 'Stri Dhan' of the assessee's wife and accordingly addition u/s 69A was deleted. Again the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench in case of Vibhu Aggarwal Vs. DCIT (2018) 170 ITD 580 where jewellery of 2531.50 gms was found at the assessee's residential premises, considered the same as reasonable by holding that in view of CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dt. 11th May, 1994, the excess jewellery found in the case of assessee, his parents, his wife, their children and the HUF was very nominal and was very much reasonable keeping in m…

ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar vs. Shri Babu Lal Data, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1231/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: S. Naiyer Ali Najmi, CIT
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 153A

…DTR 82 where gold jewellery weighing 906 gms found in search was held to be not substantial as being 'Stri Dhan' of the assessee's wife and accordingly addition u/s 69A was deleted. Again the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench in case of Vibhu Aggarwal Vs. DCIT (2018) 170 ITD 580 where jewellery of 2531.50 gms was found at the assessee's residential premises, considered the same as reasonable by holding that in view of CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dt. 11th May, 1994, the excess jewellery found in the case of assessee, his parents, his wife, their children and the HUF was very nominal and was very much reasonable keeping in m…

Shri Babu Lal Data, Alwar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1223/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: S. Naiyer Ali Najmi, CIT
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 153A

…DTR 82 where gold jewellery weighing 906 gms found in search was held to be not substantial as being 'Stri Dhan' of the assessee's wife and accordingly addition u/s 69A was deleted. Again the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench in case of Vibhu Aggarwal Vs. DCIT (2018) 170 ITD 580 where jewellery of 2531.50 gms was found at the assessee's residential premises, considered the same as reasonable by holding that in view of CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dt. 11th May, 1994, the excess jewellery found in the case of assessee, his parents, his wife, their children and the HUF was very nominal and was very much reasonable keeping in m…

Shri Babu Lal Data, Alwar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1222/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: S. Naiyer Ali Najmi, CIT
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 153A

…DTR 82 where gold jewellery weighing 906 gms found in search was held to be not substantial as being 'Stri Dhan' of the assessee's wife and accordingly addition u/s 69A was deleted. Again the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench in case of Vibhu Aggarwal Vs. DCIT (2018) 170 ITD 580 where jewellery of 2531.50 gms was found at the assessee's residential premises, considered the same as reasonable by holding that in view of CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dt. 11th May, 1994, the excess jewellery found in the case of assessee, his parents, his wife, their children and the HUF was very nominal and was very much reasonable keeping in m…

Sh. Rahul Seth, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4503/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Ita Nos.4502 & 4503/Del/2014 (Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08) Rahul Seth Vs. Acit 14, Chinar Drive, Central Circle – 25, Dlf Chhatarpur Farms New Delhi New Delhi – 110074 Pan : Aasps 9459 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By Shri R. K. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.10.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…bmitted that considering the status of the family the gifts was very reasonable and therefore no addition was warranted. In support of his aforesaid contention, he relied on the decision rendered by Delhi Tribunal in the case of Vibhu Aggarwal vs. DCIT (2018) 170 ITD 580. 10. Learned DR on the other hand supported the order of lower authorities. 11. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Sec.153A of the Act lays down that in respect of searches carried out under section 132 of the Act or requisition of books and other documents made under section 132A of the Act after 3…

Sh. Rahul Seth, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4502/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Ita Nos.4502 & 4503/Del/2014 (Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08) Rahul Seth Vs. Acit 14, Chinar Drive, Central Circle – 25, Dlf Chhatarpur Farms New Delhi New Delhi – 110074 Pan : Aasps 9459 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By Shri R. K. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.10.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…bmitted that considering the status of the family the gifts was very reasonable and therefore no addition was warranted. In support of his aforesaid contention, he relied on the decision rendered by Delhi Tribunal in the case of Vibhu Aggarwal vs. DCIT (2018) 170 ITD 580. 10. Learned DR on the other hand supported the order of lower authorities. 11. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Sec.153A of the Act lays down that in respect of searches carried out under section 132 of the Act or requisition of books and other documents made under section 132A of the Act after 3…

Anila Rasiklal Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7290/MUM/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra, D.R
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 69ASection 69C

…of his arguments the Ld. A.R. relied on a series of decisions and Board’s circular No.1916 dated 11.05.1994. 1. Vinod Garg & ANR. vs. DOT 49 CCH 0446 (Mum- Trib) 2. Ritu Bajaj vs. DCIT 52 CCH 166, 63 ITR (Tri) 594 (Delhi) 3. Vibhu Aggarwal vs. DCIT 53 CCH 355,170 ITD 580 (Delhi) 4. Nawaz Singhania vs. DCIT 51 CCH 0723,191 TTJ 650 (Mumbai) 5. Instruction No. 1916 dated 11/5/1994 Clause III 6.1 The Ld. A.R. submitted that Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee as per instruction No.1916 dated 11.05.1994 by observing that instruction No.1916 is not applicable to diamond jewellery whereas as a matter o…