← 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-2(4), Bangalore vs. Ramchandra Naveen, Bangalore

ITA 2082/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(4)Section 153A

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained jewellery without considering the fact that the assessee has admitted the same in the statements recorded ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained jewellery by placing reliance on CBDT instruction 1916 dated 11.05.1994 without considering the fact that the said instruction is for the purpose of seizure of jewellery

ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Ramchandra Naveen, Bangalore

ITA 2081/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(4)Section 153A

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained jewellery without considering the fact that the assessee has admitted the same in the statements recorded ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained jewellery by placing reliance on CBDT instruction 1916 dated 11.05.1994 without considering the fact that the said instruction is for the purpose of seizure of jewellery

Sudarshan Kumar Bansal, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Central Circle-16, New Delhi

ITA 2165/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2022-23

Section 115BSection 127Section 143(3)Section 698

prior to 2006 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in ignoring the contention of the assessee that the alleged unexplained jewellery was part of the jewellery shown at the purchase value of Rs. 50,95,894/- in the asset liability statement of the return filed

Vinay Dugar, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 974/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 153ASection 69C

year under consideration. The contentions/submissions of the appellant are being discussed and decided as under:- The fact is that during the course of search unexplained jewellery was found and after giving due benefit of CBDT Circular and explanation of the assessee the AO made an addition u/s 69A of Rs.41 ... fact that no bills/vouchers/payments were found during search of any jewellery item. So, I find that this explanation of the appellant for the unexplained jewellery is too far stretched and cannot be accepted. Moreover, the explanation for the jewellery as per CBDT Circular is accepted because it is considered that

Vinay Dugar, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 973/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 153ASection 69C

year under consideration. The contentions/submissions of the appellant are being discussed and decided as under:- The fact is that during the course of search unexplained jewellery was found and after giving due benefit of CBDT Circular and explanation of the assessee the AO made an addition u/s 69A of Rs.41 ... fact that no bills/vouchers/payments were found during search of any jewellery item. So, I find that this explanation of the appellant for the unexplained jewellery is too far stretched and cannot be accepted. Moreover, the explanation for the jewellery as per CBDT Circular is accepted because it is considered that

Vinay Dugar, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Appeal is dismissed as

ITA 972/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 153ASection 69C

year under consideration. The contentions/submissions of the appellant are being discussed and decided as under:- The fact is that during the course of search unexplained jewellery was found and after giving due benefit of CBDT Circular and explanation of the assessee the AO made an addition u/s 69A of Rs.41 ... year under consideration. The contentions/submissions of the appellant are being discussed and decided as under:- The fact is that during the course of search unexplained jewellery was found and after giving due benefit of CBDT Circular and explanation of the assessee the AO made an addition u/s 69A of Rs.41

Datla Trupathi Raju, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 44/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153A

Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.27,29,450 made by the assessing officer u/s 69A of the Act towards unexplained jewellery. 3. Without prejudice to the above the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in refusing to grant the benefit of telescoping against

Datla Trupathi Raju, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 43/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153A

Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.27,29,450 made by the assessing officer u/s 69A of the Act towards unexplained jewellery. 3. Without prejudice to the above the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in refusing to grant the benefit of telescoping against

Sh. Manoj Kumar Jain, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 645/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 69Section 69A

Kailash Chand Manoj Kumar Saraf Pvt Ltd, addition for 859.410 gms has been made by the AO. After considering the same as unexplained jewellery is found from the assessee tabulated as under — Gold Jewellery (found in Gms) Particulars Jewelle found from assessee 3329.746 859.410 Less: Jewellery of M/S Kailash Chand ... Vinod Kumar Jain of the group and co brother of the assessee, the AO made addition of Rs.65,94,073/- on account of the unexplained jewellery without considering the fact that the jewellery found in the search was lower than the jewellery found in previous search dt.17.01.2003 for the reason

Sh. Manoj Kumar Jain, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 644/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 69Section 69A

Kailash Chand Manoj Kumar Saraf Pvt Ltd, addition for 859.410 gms has been made by the AO. After considering the same as unexplained jewellery is found from the assessee tabulated as under — Gold Jewellery (found in Gms) Particulars Jewelle found from assessee 3329.746 859.410 Less: Jewellery of M/S Kailash Chand ... Vinod Kumar Jain of the group and co brother of the assessee, the AO made addition of Rs.65,94,073/- on account of the unexplained jewellery without considering the fact that the jewellery found in the search was lower than the jewellery found in previous search dt.17.01.2003 for the reason

Sh. Manoj Kumar Jain, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 643/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 69Section 69A

Kailash Chand Manoj Kumar Saraf Pvt Ltd, addition for 859.410 gms has been made by the AO. After considering the same as unexplained jewellery is found from the assessee tabulated as under — Gold Jewellery (found in Gms) Particulars Jewelle found from assessee 3329.746 859.410 Less: Jewellery of M/S Kailash Chand ... Vinod Kumar Jain of the group and co brother of the assessee, the AO made addition of Rs.65,94,073/- on account of the unexplained jewellery without considering the fact that the jewellery found in the search was lower than the jewellery found in previous search dt.17.01.2003 for the reason

ACIT, Central Circle 1(1), Bengaluru vs. Sunil Suresh, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2168/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2020-21 Acit, Vs. Shri. Sunil Suresh, Central Circle – 1(1), S-02, Skyline Apartment, Ieonard Lane, Bangalore. Richmond Town, Bangalore – 560 025, Karnataka. Pan : Akrps 0614 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 144(3)Section 69

name of his wife and as per description of the jewellry only the lady can use, how the AO can assume that unexplained jewellery belongs to the assessee and he strongly relied on the findings recorded by the learned CIT(A). The judgement relied

Abhishek Bansal, Patna vs. JCIT, Central Circle-16, New Delhi

ITA 2167/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 115BSection 132Section 69B

prior to 2006. 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in ignoring the contention of the assessee that the alleged unexplained jewellery was part of the jewellery shown at the purchase value of Rs.58,83,327/- in the asset liability statement of the return filed

Saket Bansal, Patna vs. JCIT, Central Circle-16, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2166/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT- DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 69B

prior to 2006. 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in ignoring the contention of the assessee that the alleged unexplained jewellery was part of the jewellery shown at the purchase value of Rs. 58,83,327/- in the asset liability statement of the return filed

Harshit Kochar, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 17 New Delhi, Jhandewalan New Delhi

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

ITA 5072/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarharshit Kochar, Vs. Acit, Central Circle 17, 5, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Amypk0228N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Shri Parth Singhal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 Date Of Order : 29 .08.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 06.10.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That The Learned Lower Authorities Have Erred In Nor Appreciating Either On The Fact Or Circumstance, Of The Case & Further Has Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.21,26,142/- U/S 69A R.W.S, 115Bbe Of The Act Which Is Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 69A

Delhi. 9. After considering the detailed submissions of the assessee, ld. CIT (A) deleted the additions made by the AO relating to unexplained jewellery. However, with regard to watches, assessee has submitted value of each watch based on the price available on internet which is reproduced

Sundaram Sankar Anand, Karur vs. Assistant Commissioner, Coimbatore

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of as below:

ITA 2912/CHNY/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. V. Alagappa, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. M.Murali, CIT (Virtual)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

addition made by the AO. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has preferred the present appeal. 60. Before us, the Id.AR submitted that while computing the unexplained jewellery, the AO failed to take into consideration the assessee himself as well as his two sons, as contemplated under CBDT Instruction No.1916 dated ... grams each is to be provided for the assessee and his two sons, aggregating to 300 grams. Once such standard allowance is reckoned, the unexplained jewellery reduces substantially. The balance unexplained portion works out to 89 grams. In our considered opinion and considering the credits given for jewellery held

Sundaram Sankar Anand, Karur vs. Assistant Commissioner, Coimbatore

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed of as below:

ITA 2911/CHNY/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2850,2851,2852 & 2853/Chny/2024, 2910, 2911 & 2912/Chny/2024 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sundaram Sankar Anand, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.63-B-7, Mayanur, Vs Income Tax, M Kaspa Sandai Peatai, . Central Circle – 2, Coimbatore. Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur – 639 102 [Pan:Bvips-1149-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. V. Alagappa, C.A. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. M.Murali, Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

For Appellant: Shri. V. Alagappa, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. M.Murali, CIT (Virtual)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

addition made by the AO. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has preferred the present appeal. 60. Before us, the ld.AR submitted that while computing the unexplained jewellery, the AO failed to take into consideration the assessee himself as well as his two sons, as contemplated under CBDT Instruction No.1916 dated ... grams each is to be provided for the assessee and his two sons, aggregating to 300 grams. Once such standard allowance is reckoned, the unexplained jewellery reduces substantially. The balance unexplained portion works out to 89 grams. In our considered opinion and considering the credits given for jewellery held

Sundaram Sankar Anand, Karur vs. Assistant Commissioner, Coimbatore

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of as below:

ITA 2910/CHNY/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. V. Alagappa, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. M.Murali, CIT (Virtual)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

addition made by the AO. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has preferred the present appeal. 60. Before us, the Id.AR submitted that while computing the unexplained jewellery, the AO failed to take into consideration the assessee himself as well as his two sons, as contemplated under CBDT Instruction No.1916 dated ... grams each is to be provided for the assessee and his two sons, aggregating to 300 grams. Once such standard allowance is reckoned, the unexplained jewellery reduces substantially. The balance unexplained portion works out to 89 grams. In our considered opinion and considering the credits given for jewellery held

Sundaram Sankar Anand, Karur vs. Assistant Commissioner, Coimbatore

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed of as below:

ITA 2853/CHNY/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2850,2851,2852 & 2853/Chny/2024, 2910, 2911 & 2912/Chny/2024 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sundaram Sankar Anand, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.63-B-7, Mayanur, Vs Income Tax, M Kaspa Sandai Peatai, . Central Circle – 2, Coimbatore. Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur – 639 102 [Pan:Bvips-1149-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. V. Alagappa, C.A. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. M.Murali, Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

For Appellant: Shri. V. Alagappa, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. M.Murali, CIT (Virtual)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

addition made by the AO. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has preferred the present appeal. 60. Before us, the ld.AR submitted that while computing the unexplained jewellery, the AO failed to take into consideration the assessee himself as well as his two sons, as contemplated under CBDT Instruction No.1916 dated ... grams each is to be provided for the assessee and his two sons, aggregating to 300 grams. Once such standard allowance is reckoned, the unexplained jewellery reduces substantially. The balance unexplained portion works out to 89 grams. In our considered opinion and considering the credits given for jewellery held

Sundaram Sankar Anand, Karur vs. Assistant Commissioner, Coimbatore

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed of as below:

ITA 2851/CHNY/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2850,2851,2852 & 2853/Chny/2024, 2910, 2911 & 2912/Chny/2024 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sundaram Sankar Anand, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.63-B-7, Mayanur, Vs Income Tax, M Kaspa Sandai Peatai, . Central Circle – 2, Coimbatore. Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur – 639 102 [Pan:Bvips-1149-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. V. Alagappa, C.A. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. M.Murali, Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

For Appellant: Shri. V. Alagappa, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. M.Murali, CIT (Virtual)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

addition made by the AO. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has preferred the present appeal. 60. Before us, the ld.AR submitted that while computing the unexplained jewellery, the AO failed to take into consideration the assessee himself as well as his two sons, as contemplated under CBDT Instruction No.1916 dated ... grams each is to be provided for the assessee and his two sons, aggregating to 300 grams. Once such standard allowance is reckoned, the unexplained jewellery reduces substantially. The balance unexplained portion works out to 89 grams. In our considered opinion and considering the credits given for jewellery held