← 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

DCIT CC 8(1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Suresh Gurubuxsing Wadhwa, Navi Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 78/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Mani JainFor Respondent: Amol B. Kirtane
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153Section 68

mutatis mutandis all these grounds stand dismissed. Ground No. 2 (ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.43,31,240/- on account of unexplained jewellery u/s 69A) 10. During the course of search action diamond studded gold jewellery valued at Rs.43,31,240/- was found and assessee in his statement ... assessee was asked to show cause by the sum of Rs. 43,31,240/- should not be considered as his income on account of unexplained jewellery. In this regard the assessee explained vide letter dated 26.12.2016 that during the course of search proceedings he had not filed the wealth

Vijay Kumar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5755/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Had Filed A Condonation Petition Together With His Affidavit & Also An Affidavit From The Chartered Accountant Of The Assessee Narrating The Facts & Explaining The Reasons For Delay. We Have Gone Through Those Documents & We Are Convinced That Assessee Was Prevented From Reasonable Cause In Not Filing The Appeal Before Us Within The Prescribed Time. Hence, We Deem It Fit & Appropriate To Condone The Delay In Filing Of Appeal By The Assessee & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.

Section 143(3)

assessee and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee has challenged the additions made on account of unexplained cash of Rs.98,200/- and unexplained jewellery of Rs.15,40,205/- made by the ld. AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on ‘PROTECTIVE BASIS’. 3.1. We have heard rival ... record. From the perusal of the assessment order, it is very clear and categorical that both the additions on account of unexplained cash and unexplained jewellery were made by the ld. AO on ‘PROTECTIVE BASIS’ in the hands of the assessee herein. The assessment order was framed

The Dy CIT, Central Circle-6(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Mehul Johnson, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1647/MUM/2020[2017-78]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2017-78

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1647/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Mehul Johnson, Dcit Cen. Cir. 6(4), 2808, 28Th Floor, R. No. 1925, 19Th Imperial Tower, M P Floor, Air India बिधम/ Mill’S Compound, Building, Nariman Vs. Tardeo, Point, Mumbai-400 034 Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Abbpj3414H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Mahesh Akhade, Ld. Dr By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent : Shri Gautam Jain, Ld. Ar By सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 11.05.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 19.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 07.07.2020, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-54, Mumbai For The Quantum Appeal Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3)

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh AkhadeFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Jain, Ld
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

perused the relevant findings given in the impugned orders. In so far as addition on 16 I.T.A. No. 1647/Mum/2020 Shri Mehul Johnson account of unexplained jewellery is concerned, it is undisputed fact that during the time of search, the assessee has stated that these jewelleries mainly belongs to his wife

Apurva Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir. 8(2) (Erstwhile ACIT, Cent. Cir. - 45), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

ITA 720/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR

claim of telescopic benefit before AO. In the circumstances, AO had no occasion to examine whether such sale proceeds were available for purchase of unexplained jewellery in AY 2012-13. with the appellant who was remotely connected with the transaction of such receipt of cash. This requires verification of facts

Kishore Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

ITA 5469/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR

claim of telescopic benefit before AO. In the circumstances, AO had no occasion to examine whether such sale proceeds were available for purchase of unexplained jewellery in AY 2012-13. with the appellant who was remotely connected with the transaction of such receipt of cash. This requires verification of facts

Ashish Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

ITA 5468/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR

claim of telescopic benefit before AO. In the circumstances, AO had no occasion to examine whether such sale proceeds were available for purchase of unexplained jewellery in AY 2012-13. with the appellant who was remotely connected with the transaction of such receipt of cash. This requires verification of facts

Pushpa Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

ITA 5467/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR

claim of telescopic benefit before AO. In the circumstances, AO had no occasion to examine whether such sale proceeds were available for purchase of unexplained jewellery in AY 2012-13. with the appellant who was remotely connected with the transaction of such receipt of cash. This requires verification of facts

Shweta Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

ITA 5466/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR

claim of telescopic benefit before AO. In the circumstances, AO had no occasion to examine whether such sale proceeds were available for purchase of unexplained jewellery in AY 2012-13. with the appellant who was remotely connected with the transaction of such receipt of cash. This requires verification of facts

Mr. B.Nagendra, Bellary vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1946/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashant, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 132(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 153A

case. ITA Nos. 1945 & 1946/Bang/2016 Page 24 of 32 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.36,03,938/- as unexplained jewellery under the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Without prejudice, the authorities below ought to have considered the fact that the value ... jewellery as per cost incurred to purchase has been entered in books of account and thus no portion of it can be treated as unexplained jewellery on the facts of the case. 7. The orders of the authorities below are bad in law as the mandatory conditions to invoke

Mr. B.Nagendra, Belgium vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1945/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashant, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 132(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 153A

case. ITA Nos. 1945 & 1946/Bang/2016 Page 24 of 32 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.36,03,938/- as unexplained jewellery under the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Without prejudice, the authorities below ought to have considered the fact that the value ... jewellery as per cost incurred to purchase has been entered in books of account and thus no portion of it can be treated as unexplained jewellery on the facts of the case. 7. The orders of the authorities below are bad in law as the mandatory conditions to invoke

DCIT, CC- 8(4), Mumbai vs. Ashok R. Ruia (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6309/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Shailja Rai
Section 132

mentioned that in the case of Bharat R Ruia HUF, the recipient, additions were made on account of unexplained cash deposits and unexplained jewellery for AY 2008-09 and earlier years. Moreover, Bharat R Ruia Karta of the BRR (HUF) admitted undisclosed income on account of interest received on loans

DCIT, CC- 25, New Delhi vs. Jyoti Goel, New Delhi

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

ITA 4508/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 4508/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Vs Jyoti Goel, Central Circle-25, E-270, Shastri Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aiapf0204E

For Appellant: Sh. Hiren Mehta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 144

made, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the additions except the addition of Rs.4.94 lacs on account of unexplained jewellery and hence the cross appeals. Unexplained Jewellery: 4. During the search, jewellery worth of Rs.1,38,54,216/- has been found and the same

Jyoti Goel, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi

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

ITA 4482/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 4508/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Vs Jyoti Goel, Central Circle-25, E-270, Shastri Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aiapf0204E

For Appellant: Sh. Hiren Mehta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 144

made, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the additions except the addition of Rs.4.94 lacs on account of unexplained jewellery and hence the cross appeals. Unexplained Jewellery: 4. During the search, jewellery worth of Rs.1,38,54,216/- has been found and the same

Raju Bansal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- II, Faridabad

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

ITA 7066/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 271A

pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14 vide order dated 07.10.2020 was pleased to delete the addition related to the addition made on account of unexplained jewellery of Rs.56,36,748/- by observing as under:- ITA Nos. 6449 & 7066/Del/2018 8. “We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material ... However, the addition of Rs.50,000/- made on account of cash was confirmed. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the penalty qua the unexplained jewellery deserves to be deleted. 9. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and perused the material available on record. We find that

Raju Bansal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- II, Faridabad

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

ITA 6449/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 271A

pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14 vide order dated 07.10.2020 was pleased to delete the addition related to the addition made on account of unexplained jewellery of Rs.56,36,748/- by observing as under:- ITA Nos. 6449 & 7066/Del/2018 8. “We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material ... However, the addition of Rs.50,000/- made on account of cash was confirmed. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the penalty qua the unexplained jewellery deserves to be deleted. 9. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and perused the material available on record. We find that

Reena Goel, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4483/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, C. A.; &For Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

Delhi, dated 28.04.2017 raising the solitary issue that addition sustained by the ld. CIT (Appeals) of Rs. 14,10,296/- on account of unexplained jewellery is deserves to be deleted. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case ... notjustified in partlyupholding the action of the AO by sustaining addition of Rs.14,10,296/- on account of unexplained jewellery found from the premises R-4 during search action out of total jewellery aggregating Rs.1,45,79,924/-. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify

Chhavi Anand, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-06, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 9098/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

that after considering the above decision and various other decisions, the Tribunal has deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained jewellery. He accordingly submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the learned CIT(A) is not justified and therefore ... grams as unexplained and made an ad hoc addition of Rs. 3,87,364 under 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 of ownership

Harman Singh Dhingra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4641/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 132Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 291B

Assessing Officer. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the 3 Assessing Officer made additions of Rs. 92,07,084/- on account of unexplained jewellery and Rs. 18,50,000/- unexplained cash. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before

Pradeep Sood, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle- I, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 534/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 534/Del/2018 (A.Y 2004-05) (Through Video Conferencing) Pradeep Sood Vs Dcit Rra Tax India, D-28, South Central Circle-1 Extension, Part-1, Faridabad, Haryana New Aezps3313K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

inaccurate particulars. The penalty of Rs. 51,000/- was imposed in respect of addition of Rs. 1,41,750/- on account of unexplained jewellery. 4. Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ... specified the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c). The Ld. AR further submitted that in assessment order also the addition of unexplained jewellery was not an issue before the Assessing Officer and the penalty was initiated on the afterthought which is not justifiable under

Sh. Anil Jindal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

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

ITA 838/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2013-14 Sh.Anil Jindal, Dcit, C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, Vs Central Circle-Ii, D-28, South Extension, Faridabad. Part-I, New Delhi-110049. Pan-Aaopj9776G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Satpal Gulati, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 30.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement .04.2021

Section 143(2)Section 69A

further appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Ground Nos.1 & 2 raised by the assessee are against the sustaining addition of Rs.56,55,380/- qua the unexplained jewellery found during course of search at the premises of the assessee. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, Sh. Rakesh Gupta vehemently argued that