← 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

ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Nidhi Sharma, New Delhi

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

ITA 2124/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

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

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

ITA 1842/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

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

Jaswinder Kaur Anand, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue on this ground is dismissed

ITA 1146/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 269SSection 69B

cancelled and addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) amounting to Rs. 10,65,312/- on account of purported unexplained Jewellery claimed by the assessee is deleted. 7. In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed.” 26. The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi

Jasmine Anand, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue on this ground is dismissed

ITA 1145/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 269SSection 69B

cancelled and addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) amounting to Rs. 10,65,312/- on account of purported unexplained Jewellery claimed by the assessee is deleted. 7. In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed.” 26. The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi

Ganga Saran Sharma, Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT Central Circle Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1844/DEL/2022[AGEPS6393J]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1844/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Ganga Saran Sharma, Vs Dcit, Ka-5, Kavi Nagar, Central Circle, Ghaziabad-201001 Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ageps6393J Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca & Sh. Gagan Khandelwal, Adv. Revenue By : Mr. Waseem Arshad, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 234ASection 271ASection 69A

confirming the action of the assessing officer to make an addition of Rs. 20,44,870/- (1/3rd 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 ... issue of the penalty notice under section 271AAB and also the interest charged under section 234A/B/C/D is thus illegal and bad in law.” Unexplained Jewellery – Rs.20,44,870/-: (1/3r d of Rs.61,34,610/-) 3. Keeping in view the similarity of facts, the adjudication in the case of Sh. Ankur

Ankur Sharma, Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1843/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 234ASection 271ASection 69A

confirming the action of the assessing officer to make an addition of Rs. 20,44,870/- (1/3rd 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 ... Appeal)-4, Kanpur erred to confirm the action of the assessing officer to make an addition of Rs. 20,44,870/- for the alleged unexplained jewellery by 2 Ankur Sharma invoking the provisions of section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act by ignoring the plea that jewellery belonging

Surender Kumar Mittal, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-20, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 985/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 983/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Sh. Ashutosh Mittal, Vs Dcit/Acit, H. No. 71, Vaishali Enclave, Central Circle-20, Pitampura, Maurya Enclave, North New Delhi West Delhi, Delhi-110034 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafpm6538A Ita No. 1335/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs Sh. Ashutosh Mittal, Central Circle-20, A-23/1, Lawrence Road, Indl. New Delhi Area, New Delhi-110035 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafpm6538A

For Appellant: Sh. Amol Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 69ASection 69C

erred on facts and in law in restricting the addition of Rs.1,53,79,122/- to Rs.31,49,751/- made on account of unexplained jewellery u/s 69A of the Act without considering the fact that the seized jewellery is different from the jewellery declared by the assessee in VDIS Scheme ... erred on facts and in law in restricting the addition of Rs.74,16,397/- to Rs.3,91,825/- made on account of unexplained jewellery u/s 69A of the Act without considering the fact that the seized jewellery is different from the jewellery declared by the assessee in VDIS Scheme- 1997/wealth

Mahabir Singh Mittal, Delhi vs. DIT, Central Circle-20

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 984/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 983/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Sh. Ashutosh Mittal, Vs Dcit/Acit, H. No. 71, Vaishali Enclave, Central Circle-20, Pitampura, Maurya Enclave, North New Delhi West Delhi, Delhi-110034 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafpm6538A Ita No. 1335/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs Sh. Ashutosh Mittal, Central Circle-20, A-23/1, Lawrence Road, Indl. New Delhi Area, New Delhi-110035 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafpm6538A

For Appellant: Sh. Amol Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 69ASection 69C

erred on facts and in law in restricting the addition of Rs.1,53,79,122/- to Rs.31,49,751/- made on account of unexplained jewellery u/s 69A of the Act without considering the fact that the seized jewellery is different from the jewellery declared by the assessee in VDIS Scheme ... erred on facts and in law in restricting the addition of Rs.74,16,397/- to Rs.3,91,825/- made on account of unexplained jewellery u/s 69A of the Act without considering the fact that the seized jewellery is different from the jewellery declared by the assessee in VDIS Scheme- 1997/wealth

DCIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi vs. Ashutosh Mittal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1335/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 983/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Sh. Ashutosh Mittal, Vs Dcit/Acit, H. No. 71, Vaishali Enclave, Central Circle-20, Pitampura, Maurya Enclave, North New Delhi West Delhi, Delhi-110034 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafpm6538A Ita No. 1335/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs Sh. Ashutosh Mittal, Central Circle-20, A-23/1, Lawrence Road, Indl. New Delhi Area, New Delhi-110035 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafpm6538A

For Appellant: Sh. Amol Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 69ASection 69C

erred on facts and in law in restricting the addition of Rs.1,53,79,122/- to Rs.31,49,751/- made on account of unexplained jewellery u/s 69A of the Act without considering the fact that the seized jewellery is different from the jewellery declared by the assessee in VDIS Scheme ... erred on facts and in law in restricting the addition of Rs.74,16,397/- to Rs.3,91,825/- made on account of unexplained jewellery u/s 69A of the Act without considering the fact that the seized jewellery is different from the jewellery declared by the assessee in VDIS Scheme- 1997/wealth

DCIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi vs. Mahabir Singh Mittal, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1334/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 983/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Sh. Ashutosh Mittal, Vs Dcit/Acit, H. No. 71, Vaishali Enclave, Central Circle-20, Pitampura, Maurya Enclave, North New Delhi West Delhi, Delhi-110034 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafpm6538A Ita No. 1335/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs Sh. Ashutosh Mittal, Central Circle-20, A-23/1, Lawrence Road, Indl. New Delhi Area, New Delhi-110035 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafpm6538A

For Appellant: Sh. Amol Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 69ASection 69C

erred on facts and in law in restricting the addition of Rs.1,53,79,122/- to Rs.31,49,751/- made on account of unexplained jewellery u/s 69A of the Act without considering the fact that the seized jewellery is different from the jewellery declared by the assessee in VDIS Scheme ... erred on facts and in law in restricting the addition of Rs.74,16,397/- to Rs.3,91,825/- made on account of unexplained jewellery u/s 69A of the Act without considering the fact that the seized jewellery is different from the jewellery declared by the assessee in VDIS Scheme- 1997/wealth

Tulsi Kumar Ralhan, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-3, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 2800/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2019-20

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

DCIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi vs. Jyotsna Suri, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2840/DEL/2022[2020-221]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023AY 2020-221

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M.BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri U.N Marwah, CA
Section 69A

assessee in her Wealth Tax Return/VDIS disclosure and AO had already allowed the credit of the same while making additions on account of unexplained jewellery. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law, in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,51,570/- on account of unexplained ... assessee in her Wealth Tax Return/VDIS disclosure and AO had already allowed the credit of the same while making additions on account of unexplained jewellery. The ld. CIT(DR) pointed out that the jewellery found in the said locker was unexplained but the ld. CIT(A) granted relief

Ms Neeti Rastogi, Lucknow vs. ACIT, Meerut

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2696/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shuklaasstt. Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Rastogi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Singh Kothari
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69A

DCIT vs. Shri Mehul Johnson in ITA No. 1647/MUM/2020 dtd. 19.05.2012 of Mumbai ITAT 6. In view of the aforesaid judgments, the unexplained jewellery added by the Assessing Officer stands deleted. 7. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th July

Bhaveshbhai Amulakhbhai Sonani, Surat vs. DCIT, Central Circlle-3, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 118/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.118/Srt/2022 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Bhaveshkumar Deputy Commissioner Of Amulakhbhai Sonani, A- Income-Tax, Central Vs 604, Sai Residency, Near Circle-3, Surat, 5Thfloor, Gajera School, Katargam, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Surat-395004 Gate, Surat-395001 Pan No: Apsps 0912 G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Ms. Chaitali Shah, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 03.05.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 17.07.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-4, Surat [For Short To As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 03.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2018- 19, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat / Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 28.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal:- Bhaveshkumar A Sonani “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In In Making An Addition Of Rs.16,32,732/- U/S 69A Of The Act Treating The Jewellery Found & Seized During The Cruse Of Search As Unexplained, On Erroneous Grounds Without Appreciating That The Same Is Fully Reflected In The Appellant’S & His Family Member’S Regular Books Of Accounts. Hence, The Impugned Addition As Confirmed By The Learned Cit(A) Needs To Be Deleted As Being Absolutely Erroneous, Incorrect, Illegal & Bad-In-Law.

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 69A

Assessing Officer recorded that no evidence was furnished and in the absence of evidence, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.16,32,732/- as unexplained jewellery under section 69A of the Act and brought the same to tax under section 115BBE of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the addition

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Et Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3306/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Noida, U.P. The search was conducted on the premises of the assessee on 18.10.2011 during which no incriminating material, unexplained cash or unexplained jewellery was found. 5. In Assessment Year 2011-12, based on certain website launched by one of the property brokers wherein the said broker had shown

DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/S V.C. Granite, Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 171/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri James Kurian (CIT)
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 153DSection 250Section 69A

Rupees 9,09,110/- was added on account of unexplained cash under Section 69 of 1961Act. Rs.15,09,672/- was added on account of unexplained jewellery. Rupees 45,00,000/- was added on account of unexplained hundies and Rs.29,53,631/was added on account of unexplained cash receipts. Aggrieved

V C Granites, Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 127/JPR/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri James Kurian (CIT)
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 153DSection 250Section 69A

Rupees 9,09,110/- was added on account of unexplained cash under Section 69 of 1961Act. Rs.15,09,672/- was added on account of unexplained jewellery. Rupees 45,00,000/- was added on account of unexplained hundies and Rs.29,53,631/was added on account of unexplained cash receipts. Aggrieved

Rasilaben K.Gedia, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent Cir -13, Mumbai

In the result, appeal for AY 201-11 is partly allowed

ITA 571/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.569 To 571/Mum/2014 (A.Ys. 2008-09 To 2010-11) Smt. Rasilaben K. Gedia Vs. The Acit, Flat No. 72, 7Th Floor, Central Circle-13, Shreeji Kutir, Ram Galli, Old Cgo Building, Off S.V. Road, Kandivali M.K. Road, (West), Mumbai – 400067 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Acipg0511G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Rajesh Meshram
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

book. Therefore, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Ground No. 2: To Reduce the addition on account of unexplained jewellery to the extent of Rs.6,96,600/-: 25. In the course of search action on 25.08.2009 at the residence premises of Flat ... dismissed the appeal of the assesse. The relevant part of the decision of ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “21.3. Unexplained jewellery In the assessment order addition of Rs. 27,92,950/- has been made in respect of undisclosed jewellery found during the search. The facts relating

Rasilaben K.Gedia, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent Cir 13, Mumbai

In the result, appeal for AY 201-11 is partly allowed

ITA 570/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.569 To 571/Mum/2014 (A.Ys. 2008-09 To 2010-11) Smt. Rasilaben K. Gedia Vs. The Acit, Flat No. 72, 7Th Floor, Central Circle-13, Shreeji Kutir, Ram Galli, Old Cgo Building, Off S.V. Road, Kandivali M.K. Road, (West), Mumbai – 400067 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Acipg0511G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Rajesh Meshram
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

book. Therefore, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Ground No. 2: To Reduce the addition on account of unexplained jewellery to the extent of Rs.6,96,600/-: 25. In the course of search action on 25.08.2009 at the residence premises of Flat ... dismissed the appeal of the assesse. The relevant part of the decision of ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “21.3. Unexplained jewellery In the assessment order addition of Rs. 27,92,950/- has been made in respect of undisclosed jewellery found during the search. The facts relating

Rasilaben K. Gedia, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT Cen Cir -13, Mumbai

In the result, appeal for AY 201-11 is partly allowed

ITA 569/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.569 To 571/Mum/2014 (A.Ys. 2008-09 To 2010-11) Smt. Rasilaben K. Gedia Vs. The Acit, Flat No. 72, 7Th Floor, Central Circle-13, Shreeji Kutir, Ram Galli, Old Cgo Building, Off S.V. Road, Kandivali M.K. Road, (West), Mumbai – 400067 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Acipg0511G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Rajesh Meshram
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

book. Therefore, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Ground No. 2: To Reduce the addition on account of unexplained jewellery to the extent of Rs.6,96,600/-: 25. In the course of search action on 25.08.2009 at the residence premises of Flat ... dismissed the appeal of the assesse. The relevant part of the decision of ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “21.3. Unexplained jewellery In the assessment order addition of Rs. 27,92,950/- has been made in respect of undisclosed jewellery found during the search. The facts relating