← 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

Ashok Kumar Tyagi, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle- 28, New Delhi

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

ITA 5657/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sachin Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 153A

made by the learned Assessing officer of Rs.7,03,200/- under the head unexplained cash and addition of Rs.28,44,470/- under the head unexplained jewellery without going through the facts of the case that cash and jewellery does not belong to the appellant.” 6. A search & seizure operation

Ashok Kumar Tyagi, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle- 28, New Delhi

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

ITA 5656/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sachin Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 153A

made by the learned Assessing officer of Rs.7,03,200/- under the head unexplained cash and addition of Rs.28,44,470/- under the head unexplained jewellery without going through the facts of the case that cash and jewellery does not belong to the appellant.” 6. A search & seizure operation

Ashok Kumar Tyagi, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle- 28, New Delhi

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

ITA 5655/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sachin Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 153A

made by the learned Assessing officer of Rs.7,03,200/- under the head unexplained cash and addition of Rs.28,44,470/- under the head unexplained jewellery without going through the facts of the case that cash and jewellery does not belong to the appellant.” 6. A search & seizure operation

Ashok Kumar Tyagi, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle- 28, New Delhi

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

ITA 5651/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sachin Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 153A

made by the learned Assessing officer of Rs.7,03,200/- under the head unexplained cash and addition of Rs.28,44,470/- under the head unexplained jewellery without going through the facts of the case that cash and jewellery does not belong to the appellant.” 6. A search & seizure operation

DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur vs. Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

ITA 181/JPR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

income induced under the garb 7,44,28,261/- of cash sales during pre-demonetization period Alleged difference in stock 36,25,023/- Alleged unexplained jewellery found at appellant’s 12,00,621/- Residence Alleged unexplained foreign currency 90,373/- At the outset it is submitted that invocation

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

ITA 112/JPR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

income induced under the garb 7,44,28,261/- of cash sales during pre-demonetization period Alleged difference in stock 36,25,023/- Alleged unexplained jewellery found at appellant’s 12,00,621/- Residence Alleged unexplained foreign currency 90,373/- At the outset it is submitted that invocation

DCIT Central Circle-13, New Delhi vs. Nirmal Kumar Minda, New Delhi

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

ITA 1060/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Nirmal Kumar Minda Acit Central Circle-13 House No.A-15, Ashok Vs New Delhi Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi-110052 Pan No.Afypm4910J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dy. Cit Central Circle-13 Sh. Nirmal Kumar Minda New Delhi Vs House No.A-15, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi-110052 Pan No.Afypm4910J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 69B

considered opinion in the light of the aforementioned chart we do not find any merit in making any addition on account of unexplained jewellery. 13. We further find that the assessee has given item wise reconciliation of Wealth Tax Return items with the valuation report prepared during search ... amounting to 506.900 grams as unexplained and made an ad hoc addition of Rs. 3.87,364 tinder section 69A of the Act working on unexplained jewellery, by applying average rate of the total jewellery found. The relevant portion of the assessment order reads as follows:— "a very reasonable allowance

Nirmal Minda, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-13, New Delhi

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

ITA 1511/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Nirmal Kumar Minda Acit Central Circle-13 House No.A-15, Ashok Vs New Delhi Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi-110052 Pan No.Afypm4910J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dy. Cit Central Circle-13 Sh. Nirmal Kumar Minda New Delhi Vs House No.A-15, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi-110052 Pan No.Afypm4910J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 69B

considered opinion in the light of the aforementioned chart we do not find any merit in making any addition on account of unexplained jewellery. 13. We further find that the assessee has given item wise reconciliation of Wealth Tax Return items with the valuation report prepared during search ... amounting to 506.900 grams as unexplained and made an ad hoc addition of Rs. 3.87,364 tinder section 69A of the Act working on unexplained jewellery, by applying average rate of the total jewellery found. The relevant portion of the assessment order reads as follows:— "a very reasonable allowance

Bimal Krishan Sareen, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1778/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R K Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271Section 69Section 69A

under section 69A of the Act as unexplained cash on substantive basis and made an addition of Rs. 71,19,587/- being value of unexplained jewellery on protective basis in the hands of the assessee in the assessment framed under section 153A/143(3) of the Act on 21.12.2018. 4. Aggrieved ... sent by the Ld. CIT(A) remained uncomplied with. In appellate order No. 867/20-21 dated 29.06.2022 the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition of unexplained jewellery of Rs. 71,19,587/- in the hands of Smt. Soni Sareen, wife of the assessee on substantive basis and therefore, deleted the protective

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Gurugram vs. Deepak Kumar, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7716/DEL/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Diva Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(24)(iv)Section 245D(4)Section 254

Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the unexplained jewellery amounting to Rs. 1.45 crore was surrendered by the assessee in his statement u/s 132(4) on 19.02.2016 and 08.04.2016, which was also confirmed in a letter dated

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Gurugram vs. Bharat Bhushan Kumar, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7715/DEL/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Diva Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(24)(iv)Section 245D(4)Section 254

Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the unexplained jewellery amounting to Rs. 1.45 crore was surrendered by the assessee in his statement u/s 132(4) on 19.02.2016 and 08.04.2016, which was also confirmed in a letter dated

Uday Sethi, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Noida

In the result, ITA no. 2204/Del/2022 is allowed whereas ITA No

ITA 2204/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 251

below. 6. I have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Assessing Officer made the impugned addition on account of unexplained jewellery. The objection of the assessee regarding the said addition is that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the explanation offered by the assessee ... sale of property. Learned counsel pointed out to the agreement to sell. 11. Regarding ground nos. 3,4 & 5 i.e. the addition relating to unexplained jewellery, learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the same submissions as were made in the case of Shri Udai Sethi in ITA no. 2204/Del/2022

Sunil Sethi, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Noida

In the result, ITA no. 2204/Del/2022 is allowed whereas ITA No

ITA 2203/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 251

below. 6. I have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Assessing Officer made the impugned addition on account of unexplained jewellery. The objection of the assessee regarding the said addition is that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the explanation offered by the assessee ... sale of property. Learned counsel pointed out to the agreement to sell. 11. Regarding ground nos. 3,4 & 5 i.e. the addition relating to unexplained jewellery, learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the same submissions as were made in the case of Shri Udai Sethi in ITA no. 2204/Del/2022

JCIT(OSD) Central Circle-1, Noida vs. Ace Mega Structure Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad Up

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the CO of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 4515/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 4515/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Jcit(Osd), Vs Ace Mega Structure Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1, B-47, Surya Nagar, Sahibabad, Noida, U.P.-201301 Ghaziabad, U.P.-201005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aakca8694D

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153A

added on account of unexplained cash under Section 69 of 1901 Act. 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, the assessee filed

Sharad Kumar Garg, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi

Appeal are partly allowed

ITA 3041/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2019-20

Section 132Section 271ASection 69A

facts and circumstances of the case and in law the addition of Rs. 18,39,876 to the appellant’s income on account of unexplained jewellery under section 69A r.w.s. 1 1 5RBE of the Income Tax Act, must be reversed and set aside. 7. That in view ... hearing.” 2. The only effective ground in this appeal is against sustaining the addition of Rs. 18,39,876/- made on account of unexplained jewellery. 3 3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case a search & seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income

Sandeep Sethi, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 155/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)
Section 115BSection 132(1)

during the course of search. In the assessment proceeding the learned assessing officer has added a sum of Rs. 5,52,241/- being the unexplained jewellery in addition to what has been disclosed and offered. The relevant computation is reproduced herein below: “5.5 During the course of search, silver articles ... year at hand.Subsequently, in the assessment proceedings,ld. AO added Rs. 5,52,241, in the hands of the assessee, as unexplained jewellery (Silver Items). Ld. AO for the purpose of calculating tax, on the amount surrenderedby the assessee of Rs. 89,05,480, and also the additions made

Rajiv Nigotiya, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 154/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)
Section 115BSection 132(1)

during the course of search. In the assessment proceeding the learned assessing officer has added a sum of Rs. 5,52,241/- being the unexplained jewellery in addition to what has been disclosed and offered. The relevant computation is reproduced herein below: “5.5 During the course of search, silver articles ... year at hand.Subsequently, in the assessment proceedings,ld. AO added Rs. 5,52,241, in the hands of the assessee, as unexplained jewellery (Silver Items). Ld. AO for the purpose of calculating tax, on the amount surrenderedby the assessee of Rs. 89,05,480, and also the additions made

ACIT, Central Circle- 1, New Delhi vs. Kamlesh Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed, whereas

ITA 957/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2009-10 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2012-13 With Assessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Vs. Sh. Kamlesh Gupta, Central Circle-1, C-4, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi New Ashram, New Delhi Pan :Abcpg9838M (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2009-10 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 132Section 139Section 153A

next issue which arises for consideration in both the appeals relates to additions sustained by learned Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of unexplained jewellery. 46. Briefly the facts are, in course of search and seizure; jewelleries were found in the premises of the assessee. In the block assessment proceeding in case ... weighing 208 gms. at the hands of the assessee. Based on such direction of learned Commissioner (Appeals), the Assessing Officer treated the value of unexplained jewellery weighing 208 gms. amounting to Rs.5,04,030/- as unexplained investment in jewellery by the assessee, added back to the income of the assessee

ACIT, Cenbtral Circle-1, New Delhi vs. Kamlesh Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed, whereas

ITA 956/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2009-10 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2012-13 With Assessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Vs. Sh. Kamlesh Gupta, Central Circle-1, C-4, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi New Ashram, New Delhi Pan :Abcpg9838M (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2009-10 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 132Section 139Section 153A

next issue which arises for consideration in both the appeals relates to additions sustained by learned Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of unexplained jewellery. 46. Briefly the facts are, in course of search and seizure; jewelleries were found in the premises of the assessee. In the block assessment proceeding in case ... weighing 208 gms. at the hands of the assessee. Based on such direction of learned Commissioner (Appeals), the Assessing Officer treated the value of unexplained jewellery weighing 208 gms. amounting to Rs.5,04,030/- as unexplained investment in jewellery by the assessee, added back to the income of the assessee

ACIT, Cenbtral Circle-1, New Delhi vs. Kamlesh Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed, whereas

ITA 955/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2009-10 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2012-13 With Assessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Vs. Sh. Kamlesh Gupta, Central Circle-1, C-4, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi New Ashram, New Delhi Pan :Abcpg9838M (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2009-10 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 132Section 139Section 153A

next issue which arises for consideration in both the appeals relates to additions sustained by learned Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of unexplained jewellery. 46. Briefly the facts are, in course of search and seizure; jewelleries were found in the premises of the assessee. In the block assessment proceeding in case ... weighing 208 gms. at the hands of the assessee. Based on such direction of learned Commissioner (Appeals), the Assessing Officer treated the value of unexplained jewellery weighing 208 gms. amounting to Rs.5,04,030/- as unexplained investment in jewellery by the assessee, added back to the income of the assessee