← 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

Jyoti Ajit Kulkarni, Pune vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 5(3), Mumbai

ITA 5071/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri ChandrasekharFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair – (SR DR)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Kavita Kapilashrami, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1398/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri T.M.Shivakumar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

entire jewellery found to the extent of 1896.78 grams stood completely explained and there was no need to make any addition on account of unexplained jewellery. The ld AO did not heed to this explanation given by the assessee and gave credit only to the extent of 1300 grams ... grams found during the course of search. Accordingly, the ld AO valued the alleged unexplained jewellery of 596.78 grams of Rs. 19,80,742/- and added a sum as unexplained jewellery u/s 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act in the assessment. This action

Kavita Kapilashrami, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1397/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri T.M.Shivakumar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

entire jewellery found to the extent of 1896.78 grams stood completely explained and there was no need to make any addition on account of unexplained jewellery. The ld AO did not heed to this explanation given by the assessee and gave credit only to the extent of 1300 grams ... grams found during the course of search. Accordingly, the ld AO valued the alleged unexplained jewellery of 596.78 grams of Rs. 19,80,742/- and added a sum as unexplained jewellery u/s 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act in the assessment. This action

Kolaparthy Suvarna Lakshmi, Nellore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nellore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 595/HYD/2023[A.Y.2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Kolaparthy Suvarna Lakshmi, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nellore. Central Circle – 1, Nellore. Pan : Agupk4977A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. Ar. Date Of Hearing: 19.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69A

return of Income was taxed at special rate as per the provisions of the 115BBE of Income Tax Act, 1961 and was treated as unexplained jewellery u/s 69A of the Act. Accordingly, Assessing Officer completed the assessment and passed assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act dt.12.09.2019 ... found in excess of wealth shown in the wealth tax return. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated the excess jewellery worth Rs.28,55,377/- as unexplained jewellery u/ s 69A of the Act and taxed the same as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act in the current year

Vidhya Devi, Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8198/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2012-13 Vidhya Devi Dcit C/O M/S. Rra Tax India, D- Vs Central Circle 28, South Extension, Part-I, Noida New Delhi Pan No.Asbpd0089B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advocate Sh. Deepesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2024 Order Per Saktijit Dey,Vp: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Arising Out Of Order Dated 23.10.2018 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 4 (For Short “Cit(A)”), Kanpur For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Though, The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds Both On Jurisdictional Issue As Well As On Merits, However, At The Very Outset We Proceed To Decide The Jurisdictional Issue Raised In Ground No.1, As It Goes To The Root Of The Matter.

Section 132Section 153Section 153C

Para5) (2) Addition on account of 8,78,038 unexplained gift (As discussed in Para6) (3) Addition on account of 1,20,00,000 unexplained jewellery as discussed in para 7 (4) Addition on account of house 5,07,036 hold expenses (para 8) (5) Total income Or Say Rs.63

Bawniet Kaur Punihani, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

ITA 1925/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1925/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Vs. Dcit Bawniet Kaur Punihani F-5,Radhey Mohan Drive, Central Circle-19, Mehrauli, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Feopp8377E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1744/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Vs. Dcit Jaspreet Kaur Punihani S-138, Greater Kailash, Central Circle-19, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Egtpk8965H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1747/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Vs. Dcit Gurpreet Kaur Punihani F-5, Radhey Mohan Drive, Central Circle-19, Mehrauli, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aolpp0154P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1749/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Vs. Dcit Amarjeet Singh Punihani S-138, Greater Kailash-2 Central Circle-19, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aaipp3208R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69A

partly upholding the addition made u/s 69A of the Act by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred in short as “AO”) in respect of unexplained jewellery found in the course of search. Grounds of appeal read as under: - 1. “(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT ... justified in upholding the additions to the extent of Rs.1,31,30,074/- made u/s 69A on the alleged ground of unexplained jewellery in total disregard to facts and circumstances of the case. (ii) That in absence of any adverse material or evidence in support of the allegation that jewellery

Amarjeet Singh Punihani, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-19, New Delhi, Delhi

ITA 1749/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1925/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Vs. Dcit Bawniet Kaur Punihani F-5,Radhey Mohan Drive, Central Circle-19, Mehrauli, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Feopp8377E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1744/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Vs. Dcit Jaspreet Kaur Punihani S-138, Greater Kailash, Central Circle-19, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Egtpk8965H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1747/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Vs. Dcit Gurpreet Kaur Punihani F-5, Radhey Mohan Drive, Central Circle-19, Mehrauli, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aolpp0154P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1749/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Vs. Dcit Amarjeet Singh Punihani S-138, Greater Kailash-2 Central Circle-19, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aaipp3208R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69A

partly upholding the addition made u/s 69A of the Act by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred in short as “AO”) in respect of unexplained jewellery found in the course of search. Grounds of appeal read as under: - 1. “(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT ... justified in upholding the additions to the extent of Rs.1,31,30,074/- made u/s 69A on the alleged ground of unexplained jewellery in total disregard to facts and circumstances of the case. (ii) That in absence of any adverse material or evidence in support of the allegation that jewellery

Gurpreet Kaur Punihani, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

ITA 1747/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1925/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Vs. Dcit Bawniet Kaur Punihani F-5,Radhey Mohan Drive, Central Circle-19, Mehrauli, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Feopp8377E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1744/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Vs. Dcit Jaspreet Kaur Punihani S-138, Greater Kailash, Central Circle-19, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Egtpk8965H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1747/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Vs. Dcit Gurpreet Kaur Punihani F-5, Radhey Mohan Drive, Central Circle-19, Mehrauli, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aolpp0154P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1749/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Vs. Dcit Amarjeet Singh Punihani S-138, Greater Kailash-2 Central Circle-19, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aaipp3208R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69A

partly upholding the addition made u/s 69A of the Act by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred in short as “AO”) in respect of unexplained jewellery found in the course of search. Grounds of appeal read as under: - 1. “(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT ... justified in upholding the additions to the extent of Rs.1,31,30,074/- made u/s 69A on the alleged ground of unexplained jewellery in total disregard to facts and circumstances of the case. (ii) That in absence of any adverse material or evidence in support of the allegation that jewellery

Jaspreet Kaur Punihani, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle -19, New Delhi, Delhi

ITA 1744/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1925/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Vs. Dcit Bawniet Kaur Punihani F-5,Radhey Mohan Drive, Central Circle-19, Mehrauli, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Feopp8377E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1744/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Vs. Dcit Jaspreet Kaur Punihani S-138, Greater Kailash, Central Circle-19, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Egtpk8965H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1747/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Vs. Dcit Gurpreet Kaur Punihani F-5, Radhey Mohan Drive, Central Circle-19, Mehrauli, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aolpp0154P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1749/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Vs. Dcit Amarjeet Singh Punihani S-138, Greater Kailash-2 Central Circle-19, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aaipp3208R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69A

partly upholding the addition made u/s 69A of the Act by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred in short as “AO”) in respect of unexplained jewellery found in the course of search. Grounds of appeal read as under: - 1. “(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT ... justified in upholding the additions to the extent of Rs.1,31,30,074/- made u/s 69A on the alleged ground of unexplained jewellery in total disregard to facts and circumstances of the case. (ii) That in absence of any adverse material or evidence in support of the allegation that jewellery

Sudesh Dua, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-3, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2799/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Nirbhay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

instruction no. 1916, there is exemption to some extent from seizure in respect of jewellery found. The instruction does not lay down that unexplained jewellery to the extent of 500 gms in the case of a married lady is automatically explained or there is no need to explain the jewellery

ACIT, Central Circle-16, New Delhi vs. Madhu Lodha, West Bengal

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9868/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarshri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. R.C .Rai, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,88,74,635/- made by A.O. on account of unexplained jewellery u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act ? 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case, in deleting the entire ... amounting to Rs.1,10,38,505/- only, out of total addition of Rs. Rs.1,88,74,635/- made by A.O on account of unexplained jewellery ? 2 Madhu Lodha 4. (a) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. (b) The appellant

DCIT Central Circle-13, New Delhi vs. Ashok Minda, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1061/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. N. K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2018-19 Ashok Minda Vs. Acit 17, Olof Flam Marg, Central Circle -13 Vasant Vihar-I, South West, New Delhi Delhi, New Delhi-110006 Pan No.Aoepm1451M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Acit Vs. Ashok Minda Central Circle -13 17, Olof Flam Marg, New Delhi Vasant Vihar-I, South West, Delhi, New Delhi- 110006 Pan No.Aoepm1451M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 69BSection 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. N

Kirti Singh, Bulandshahr vs. ACIT, Central Circle-II, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 977/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshand, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)

also affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer and declined to interfere with the additions carried out towards unexplained jewellery. 8. Further aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities as well as material available ... record. 10. The additions on account of unexplained jewellery being 1179.10 gms valued at Rs.44,32,030/- is subject matter of controversy. As pointed out on behalf of the assessee, total jewellery found during the search stands at 2479.10 gms. The Assessing Officer has accepted 1300 gms as attributable

Kirti Singh, Bulandshahr vs. ACIT Central Circle-II, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1067/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshand, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)

also affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer and declined to interfere with the additions carried out towards unexplained jewellery. 8. Further aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities as well as material available ... record. 10. The additions on account of unexplained jewellery being 1179.10 gms valued at Rs.44,32,030/- is subject matter of controversy. As pointed out on behalf of the assessee, total jewellery found during the search stands at 2479.10 gms. The Assessing Officer has accepted 1300 gms as attributable

Chandra Pal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-II, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 978/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Mohit Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

assessment was completed by making addition of Rs. 59,57,480/- u/s 69A of IT Act on account of unexplained jewellery which has been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us. 2 Chandra Pal 3. Except the amount involved the facts of the case ... were also issued and A.O. completed the assessment by making addition of Rs. 9,66,000/- u/s 69A of IT Act on account of unexplained jewellery. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the undersigned. 3. The Grounds of appeal relate to addition

Preeti Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-II, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 980/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Mohit Chaudhary, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

completed 2 Preeti Singh the assessment by making addition of Rs. 9,66,000/- u/s 69A of IT Act on account of unexplained jewellery. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the undersigned. 3. The Grounds of appeal relate to addition ... account of unexplained jewellery. The relevant part of assessment order is as under: A search & seizure operations u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 was conducted on 27.11.2020 on the premises of M/s Shiv Shakti Construction. The business premise of the firm and residences of its partners and their

Dr. Manish Chhaparwal, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Udaipur

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

ITA 53/JODH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Kothari, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 250

been given by the AO to the assessee. He, accordingly, prayed that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition on account of unexplained jewellery seized. He pleaded that the same may be sustained. 18 Dr. Manish Chhaparwal v. DCIT 15. We have heard the rival contentions, perused ... infirmity or perversity to the facts on record in the decision of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition made on account unexplained jewellery amounting to Rs.29,61,853/- Thus, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 20 Dr. Manish Chhaparwal v. DCIT 16. In the next ground of appeal

ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Jaipal Singh Sharma Trust, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2127/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 234ASection 271ASection 68Section 69A

confirming the action of the assessing officer to make an addition of Rs. 20,44,870/- (1/3 of Rs. 61,34,610/-treated as unexplained jewellery) to the income of the appellant in respect of the alleged un- explained gold ornaments found at the time of search by invoking ... confirm the action of the assessing officer to make an addition of Rs. 20,44,870/- (1/3" of Rs. 61,34,610/- treated as unexplained jewellery) by invoking the provisions of section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act under section ignoring the plea that jewellery belonging

ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Jaipal Singh Sharma Trust, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2126/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 234ASection 271ASection 68Section 69A

confirming the action of the assessing officer to make an addition of Rs. 20,44,870/- (1/3 of Rs. 61,34,610/-treated as unexplained jewellery) to the income of the appellant in respect of the alleged un- explained gold ornaments found at the time of search by invoking ... confirm the action of the assessing officer to make an addition of Rs. 20,44,870/- (1/3" of Rs. 61,34,610/- treated as unexplained jewellery) by invoking the provisions of section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act under section ignoring the plea that jewellery belonging

Ait, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Ankit Sharma, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2125/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 234ASection 271ASection 68Section 69A

confirming the action of the assessing officer to make an addition of Rs. 20,44,870/- (1/3 of Rs. 61,34,610/-treated as unexplained jewellery) to the income of the appellant in respect of the alleged un- explained gold ornaments found at the time of search by invoking ... confirm the action of the assessing officer to make an addition of Rs. 20,44,870/- (1/3" of Rs. 61,34,610/- treated as unexplained jewellery) by invoking the provisions of section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act under section ignoring the plea that jewellery belonging