← All Phrases

“unexplained jewellery”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 69ASection 69A324 judgments

The decision most relied on for unexplained jewellery is Ashok Chaddha v. ITO (337 ITR 399), cited in 252 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on unexplained jewellery

Ashok Chaddha v. ITO
337 ITR 399 · 2011 · High Court
252
citing judgments

In search assessments under section 153A, a notice under section 143(2) is not required if a notice under section 153A(1)(a) has been issued. Modest or customary jewellery, commensurate with age and status, found during a search, especially if it is 'Stridhan' or falls within CBDT guidelines, cannot be added as unexplained income.

CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain
339 ITR 351 · 2011 · High Court
113
citing judgments

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.

Smt. Neena Syal v. ACIT
70 ITD 62 · 1999 · ITAT
39
citing judgments

Disallowance of expenses cannot be made if their genuineness is not challenged. For unexplained money, possession of gold jewellery by married ladies up to 500 grams is considered explained.

Chadha v. ITO
202 Taxmann 395 · 2011 · High Court
37
citing judgments

Jewellery found during a search that is adequately explained as being owned by a married lady for a long time, even without documentary evidence, should not be added to income, as this recognizes realities of life.

CIT v. Satya Narain Patni
46 Taxmann.com 440 · 2014 · High Court
33
citing judgments

Jewellery found in possession, to the extent permitted by Instruction No. 1916 (which exempts up to 100 gms of gold for unmarried male members), cannot be treated as an undisclosed investment.

Revenue. In Asstt.CIT v. Ramesh Chandra R. Patel
89 ITD 203 · 2004 · ITAT
32
citing judgments

Jewellery within prescribed limits, especially that received during marriage, is presumed explained even if found during a search, based on CBDT instructions. The revenue cannot treat such jewellery as unexplained income simply because it was found.

Pati Devi v. ITO
240 ITR 727 · 1999 · High Court
27
citing judgments

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.

449 (Madras), Sterling Machine Tools v. CIT
122 ITR 926 · High Court
22
citing judgments

Unexplained jewellery found during a search can be added to income, even if the assessee claims it was received back against purchase bills, especially when part of the unaccounted cash is deposited in the bank.

Judgments citing unexplained jewellery

Shuchi Agarwal, C/O Bk Kapur and Company vs. ACIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3922/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay[Assessment Year: 2022-23]

Section 143(3)Section 69A

before the Tribunal for the additions made by the Assessing Officer for Rs.1,83,53,316/- as unexplained income and Rs.9,10,926/- as unexplained jewellery found during the search. But from the order passed by the ld. CIT(A)-3, Noida for Assessment Year 2022-23, it is found

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

this appeal is as regards to the order of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of unexplained jewellery found during the course of search under section 69A of the Act amounting to Rs.13,82,644/-. 3. We have heard rival contentions

Santosh Bansal, Patna vs. JCIT, Central Circle-16, New Delhi

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

ITA 2168/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmansantosh Bansal, Vs. Jcit, Central Circle 16, Ground Floor, Santosh Complex, New Delhi. Dak Bungalow Road, Bandar Bagicha, Patna – 800 001 (Bihar). (Pan : Aexpb8934M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Neeraj Jain, Ca Shri P.K. Mishra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Order : 30.01.2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 34

prior to 2006. 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in ignoring the contention of the assessee that the alleged unexplained jewellery was part of the jewellery shown at the purchase value of Rs.4,13,93,636/- in the asset liability statement of the return filed

Pooja Aggarwal, Panchkula vs. ACIT(Central) Shimla, Shimla

In the result, ITA No.1021/Chandi/2025 stand partly allowed

ITA 1027/CHANDI/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.1021/CHANDI/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2023-24) | Sh. Anup Kumar Aggarwal House No.218, Sector-10 Panchkula – 134113 | बनाम / Vs. | ACIT(Central) Shimla 171001 | |---|---|---| | स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. | ADJPK-5842-L | | | (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) | : | (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) | & 2. आयकर अपीलसं./ ITA No.1027/CHANDI/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2023-24) | Ms. Pooja Agga

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) a/w Shri Lovesh BansalFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri Rajat Kumar
Section 127Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 69A

assessee and added another half in the hands of Smt. Pooja Aggarwal u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 3.3 Addition of Unexplained Jewellery 3.3.1 During search, gold jewellery weighing 3011.150 grams, diamond jewellery weighing 366.870 grams (equivalent weight of gold) and silver utensils weighing 22.630 Kg were found. Further

Anup Kumar Aggarwal, Panckula vs. ACIT(Central) Shimla, Shimla

In the result, ITA No.1021/Chandi/2025 stand partly allowed

ITA 1021/CHANDI/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) a/w Shri Lovesh BansalFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri Rajat Kumar
Section 127Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 69A

assessee and added another half in the hands of Smt. Pooja Aggarwal u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 3.3 Addition of Unexplained Jewellery 3.3.1 During search, gold jewellery weighing 3011.150 grams, diamond jewellery weighing 366.870 grams (equivalent weight of gold) and silver utensils weighing 22.630 Kg were found. Further

Arushi Suri, New Delhi vs. Assessment Officer, Assessment Unit, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is partly allowed

ITA 2443/DEL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Atul Puri, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Arora, Sr. DR
Section 69A

Authorities prior to visiting to Dubai on 20.06.2022. With the above observation, the Assessing Officer treated the difference of Rs. 78,10,200/- as unexplained jewellery u/s 69A. Accordingly, he made the addition under the head income from other sources”. 3. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred

Asha Shivdasani, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2312/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarasha Ranjit Shivdasani V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of 801, Benhur Apartments, बनाम Income Tax (Appeals), Acit 32, Narayan Debholkar Central Circle – 5(3), Road, Malabar Hills, Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Air Mumbai – 400 006, India Building, Nariman Point, Maharashtra Mumbai – 400021, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Bhzps0010H Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Shreyas Shah,ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, (Sr. DR)
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

daughter. Therefore, concurring with the findings of the AO ,the addition of Rs. 60,58.901/- made u/s 69A of the Act on account of unexplained jewellery into the hands of the assesseewas confirmed. 5. Before us,the ld.AR has repeated the same contentions.It is submitted that the lower authorities failed

Deepak Kakubhai Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 6511/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 1Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 30Section 56

interest computed thereon and brought to tax under section 56 of the Act; and • for Assessment Year 2018-19, addition on account of alleged unexplained jewellery under section 69A of the Act. 4. The year-wise details of the additions made by the Assessing Officer are tabulated below: AY Reasons ... thereon u/s 1,70,18,783/- 56 2018-19 (i) Notional interest earned thereon u/s 1,61,51,250/- 56 41,99,700/- (ii) Unexplained Jewellery u/s 69A 5. The assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal for each of the assessment years. However, the grounds, in substance, revolve around

Deepak Kakubhai Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

ITA 6510/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
Section 1Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 30Section 56

interest computed thereon and brought to tax under section 56 of the Act; and • for Assessment Year 2018-19, addition on account of alleged unexplained jewellery under section 69A of the Act. 4. The year-wise details of the additions made by the Assessing Officer are tabulated below: AY Reasons ... Notional interest earned thereon u/s 1,70,18,783/- 56 2018-19 Notional interest earned thereon u/s 1,61,51,250/- 56 Unexplained Jewellery u/s 69A 41,99,700/- 5. The assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal for each of the assessment years. However, the grounds, in substance, revolve

Deepak Kakubhai Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

ITA 6509/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2016-17
Section 1Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 30Section 56

interest computed thereon and brought to tax under section 56 of the Act; and • for Assessment Year 2018-19, addition on account of alleged unexplained jewellery under section 69A of the Act. 4. The year-wise details of the additions made by the Assessing Officer are tabulated below: AY Reasons ... Notional interest earned thereon u/s 1,70,18,783/- 56 2018-19 Notional interest earned thereon u/s 1,61,51,250/- 56 Unexplained Jewellery u/s 69A 41,99,700/- 5. The assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal for each of the assessment years. However, the grounds, in substance, revolve

Deepak Kakubhai Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 6508/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 1Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 30Section 56

interest computed thereon and brought to tax under section 56 of the Act; and • for Assessment Year 2018-19, addition on account of alleged unexplained jewellery under section 69A of the Act. 4. The year-wise details of the additions made by the Assessing Officer are tabulated below: AY Reasons ... thereon u/s 1,70,18,783/- 56 2018-19 (i) Notional interest earned thereon u/s 1,61,51,250/- 56 41,99,700/- (ii) Unexplained Jewellery u/s 69A 5. The assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal for each of the assessment years. However, the grounds, in substance, revolve around

Deepak Kakubhai Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

ITA 6507/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2014-15
Section 1Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 56Section 69

interest computed thereon and brought to tax under section 56 of the Act; and for Assessment Year 2018-19, addition on account of alleged unexplained jewellery under section 69A of the Act. 4. The year-wise details of the additions made by the Assessing Officer are tabulated below: AY Reasons ... Notional interest earned thereon u/s 56 1,70,18,783/- 2018-19 Notional interest earned thereon u/s 56 Unexplained Jewellery u/s 69A 1,61,51,250/- 41,99,700/- 5. The assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal for each of the assessment years. However, the grounds, in substance, revolve

Deepak Kakubhai Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

ITA 6506/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2013-14
Section 1Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 4Section 56

interest computed thereon and brought to tax under section 56 of the Act; and • for Assessment Year 2018-19, addition on account of alleged unexplained jewellery under section 69A of the Act. 4. The year-wise details of the additions made by the Assessing Officer are tabulated below: AY Reasons ... Notional interest earned thereon u/s 1,70,18,783/- 56 2018-19 Notional interest earned thereon u/s 1,61,51,250/- 56 Unexplained Jewellery u/s 69A 41,99,700/- 5. The assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal for each of the assessment years. However, the grounds, in substance, revolve

Deepak Kakubhai Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle - 4(1), Mumbai

ITA 6505/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2012-13
Section 1Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 56Section 69

interest computed thereon and brought to tax under section 56 of the Act; and for Assessment Year 2018-19, addition on account of alleged unexplained jewellery under section 69A of the Act. 4. The year-wise details of the additions made by the Assessing Officer are tabulated below: AY Reasons ... Notional interest earned thereon u/s 1,70,18,783/- 56 2018-19 Notional interest earned thereon u/s 1,61,51,250/- 56 Unexplained Jewellery u/s 69A 41,99,700/- 5. The assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal for each of the assessment years. However, the grounds, in substance, revolve

Meetaben Hitendrakumar Patel, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1, Vadodara

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1927/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 250

withdraw any of the ground(s) of appeal hereinabove contained.” 5. The solitary issue raised relates to the addition made on account of unexplained jewellery. The facts of the case are that during search conducted on the assessee on 31.01.2018, jewellery worth Rs.26,16,300/- (874 grams) was found

Hitendrakumar Chimanlal Patel, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1, Vadodara

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1926/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 250

withdraw any of the ground(s) of appeal hereinabove contained.” 5. The solitary issue raised relates to the addition made on account of unexplained jewellery. The facts of the case are that during search conducted on the assessee on 31.01.2018, jewellery worth Rs.26,16,300/- (874 grams) was found

S Chandra Prakash, Chennai vs. ITO, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

ITA 2815/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2815/Chny/2025 & Sa No.105/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2021-22 S.Chandra Prakash, No.13/5, Vritti Apartment, 2A, Ormes Road, 3Rd Cross Street, Kilpauk S.O, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010. Ito, Vs. Central Circle – 3(2), Chennai. [Pan: Aaapc-4541-Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Ам: This Appeal & Stay Application Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Chennai - 20 (In Short "Cit(A)") Passed U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") Dated 08.08.2025 Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Against The Order Passed By The Acit, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai, U/S.143(3) Of The Act Dated 30.12.2022. :-2-:

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 69

Id.CIT(A), which is reproduced hereunder: “All the grounds raised by the appellant are against the addition of Rs.5,14,75,370/- as unexplained jewellery u/s.69A of the Act. During the appeal proceedings, the appellant has submitted that the appellant had received 11.17 kg of gold jewellery on behalf ... basis of the above discussion, it can be concluded that the gold jewellery found in possession of the appellant was his own unexplained jewellery and it did not belong to M/s.Shuba Manggalam and M/s.Vithraag Jewels. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the AO was justified in treating the seized

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

under section 68 of the Act was sustained. 13. The addition of Rs. 57,83,972/- under section 69A on account of unexplained jewellery was confirmed by the CIT(A), holding that the assessee failed to substantiate ownership and source of jewellery by cogent documentary evidence and that CBDT Instruction

Anuradha Seth, Ludhiana Punjab vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Ludhiana Punjab

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

ITA 259/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 69B

total addition of Rs.94,72,908/-) made by the learned A.O. under section 69B read with section 115BBE on account of the alleged unexplained jewellery found on the date of search which took place on 21.10.2021 to 23.10.2021, without properly and correctly appreciating the appellant’s submissions made during

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

ITA 1496/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM