← 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-1, New Delhi vs. Kamlesh Gupta, New Delhi

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

ITA 954/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

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 953/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

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 952/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

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

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

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

ITA 632/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

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

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

ITA 631/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

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

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

ITA 630/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

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

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

ITA 629/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

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

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

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

ITA 628/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

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

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

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

ITA 627/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

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

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

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

ITA 626/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

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

ITO, New Delhi vs. Rakesh Kumar Garg, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 896/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Sidharth, CIT- DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 50C

case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 17,43.460/- made by the AO on account of unexplained jewellery and cash for which no explanation or documentary evidences were filed by the assessee before the AO. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, alter

Lakshmanan Indirani, Coimbatore vs. ACIT Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 34/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Senthil Kumar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Marutha Pandiyan – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 46ASection 69A

Jawahar Lal Oswal reported in (2016) 382 ITR 453 (P & H) As is evident, the assessee is aggrieved by confirmation of addition of unexplained jewellery. 3 2. The Registry has noted delay of 3 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by the assessee. Considering ... reckoned as explained jewellery and the AO is accordingly directed to work out the unaccounted income attributable to the remaining unexplained jewellery 1695.24 gms [3574.59 - 1879.35 gms] and to bring the same to tax. Accordingly, the appellants ground is partly allowed. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre-Circle-6(4), Mumbai-400021 vs. Shri Saurabh Mittal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1435/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M Balaganesh,Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1435/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Deputy Commissioner Of Shri. Saurabh Mittal A-19, House No.A-01, A-32, Income Tax, Centre- Westend, New Delhi-110 021 Circle-6(4) बिधम/ Room No. 1925, 19Th Vs. Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Anapm2488D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.334 & 333/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Shri. Saurabh Kumar Deputy Commissioner Of Mittal Income Tax, Centre-Circle- Room No.543, 5Th Floor, बिधम/ 6(4) Ayankar Bhavan, Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Vs. M.K.Road, Air India Building, Nariman Mumbai-400 020. Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Anapm2488D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Joshi, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. A. B. Koli, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 25.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 31.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Joshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri. A. B. Koli, Ld. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 3Section 69A

153C of the Act. The precondition for issuing notice u/s 153C is existence of satisfaction note. The AO has recorded the satisfaction note about unexplained jewellery. In the assessment order u/s 153C AO has not made any addition in respect of undisclosed/unaccounted jewellery as referred in the satisfaction note. However

D, N, Vikraman, Tuticorin vs. ACIT Central Circle-2, Madurai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 250/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 250/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri. K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. T.M. Sugunthamala, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153C

r.w.s. 153C of the Act on 29.12.2017 :-4-: ITA. No: 250/Chny/2020 and determined total income of Rs. 73,46,381/- by making addition towards unexplained jewellery and unexplained cash found in the course of search. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority

DCIT, Central CIT-2(4), Chennai vs. A Gandhimathi, Kancheepuram

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 15/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.13-15/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2014-15 The Dy. Commissioner Of- V. Smt. A. Gandhimathi, Income Tax, Prop: East West Gandhimathi Central Circle-2(4), Combined Industries, Investigation Building, Survey No.503/2A2A, Chennai. Mambakkam Salai, Echankadu, Kayar, Kancheepuram District. [Pan: Agupa 2409 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Department By : Mr.Guru Bashyam, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Mr.Philip George, Adv. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.10.2022

For Appellant: Mr.Philip George, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Guru Bashyam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 158B

without any reference to particular seized material found as a result of search. Similarly, the AO has taken circumstantial evidence of cash and unexplained jewellery found during the course of search to argue that the assessee is in the habit of suppression of sales by showing under valuation which

DCIT, Central CIT-2(4), Chennai vs. A Gandhimathi, Kancheepuram

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 14/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.13-15/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2014-15 The Dy. Commissioner Of- V. Smt. A. Gandhimathi, Income Tax, Prop: East West Gandhimathi Central Circle-2(4), Combined Industries, Investigation Building, Survey No.503/2A2A, Chennai. Mambakkam Salai, Echankadu, Kayar, Kancheepuram District. [Pan: Agupa 2409 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Department By : Mr.Guru Bashyam, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Mr.Philip George, Adv. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.10.2022

For Appellant: Mr.Philip George, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Guru Bashyam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 158B

without any reference to particular seized material found as a result of search. Similarly, the AO has taken circumstantial evidence of cash and unexplained jewellery found during the course of search to argue that the assessee is in the habit of suppression of sales by showing under valuation which

DCIT, Central CIT-2(4), Chennai vs. A Gandhimathi, Kancheepuram

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 13/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.13-15/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2014-15 The Dy. Commissioner Of- V. Smt. A. Gandhimathi, Income Tax, Prop: East West Gandhimathi Central Circle-2(4), Combined Industries, Investigation Building, Survey No.503/2A2A, Chennai. Mambakkam Salai, Echankadu, Kayar, Kancheepuram District. [Pan: Agupa 2409 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Department By : Mr.Guru Bashyam, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Mr.Philip George, Adv. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.10.2022

For Appellant: Mr.Philip George, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Guru Bashyam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 158B

without any reference to particular seized material found as a result of search. Similarly, the AO has taken circumstantial evidence of cash and unexplained jewellery found during the course of search to argue that the assessee is in the habit of suppression of sales by showing under valuation which

Smt. P Vai Murthy, Hydrabad vs. Dy CIT CC-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1544/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: H.K. PandaFor Respondent: Purushottam Tripuri
Section 132Section 144Section 148Section 69Section 69A

case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.3,98,360/- on account of unexplained jewellery. 3. The appellant craves leave to add to alter, amend and/or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal. 4. The appellant prays ... course of the assessment proceedings the A.O also made addition of Rs.10,39,232/- on account of unexplained jewellery as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources u/s 69 of the Act. The A.O has also added an amount of Rs.1,62,97,237/- in respect of amount deposited

Shri Pvr Murthy, Hydrabad vs. Dy CIT -CC-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1543/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: H.K. PandaFor Respondent: Purushottam Tripuri
Section 132Section 144Section 148Section 69Section 69A

case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.3,98,360/- on account of unexplained jewellery. 3. The appellant craves leave to add to alter, amend and/or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal. 4. The appellant prays ... course of the assessment proceedings the A.O also made addition of Rs.10,39,232/- on account of unexplained jewellery as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources u/s 69 of the Act. The A.O has also added an amount of Rs.1,62,97,237/- in respect of amount deposited

Shri Pvr Murthy, Hydrabad vs. Dy CIT CC-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1542/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: H.K. PandaFor Respondent: Purushottam Tripuri
Section 132Section 144Section 148Section 69Section 69A

case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.3,98,360/- on account of unexplained jewellery. 3. The appellant craves leave to add to alter, amend and/or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal. 4. The appellant prays ... course of the assessment proceedings the A.O also made addition of Rs.10,39,232/- on account of unexplained jewellery as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources u/s 69 of the Act. The A.O has also added an amount of Rs.1,62,97,237/- in respect of amount deposited