“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smt. Sangeeta Sawhney, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1646/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

where the AO after reducing the claim of the assessee of VDIS declaration of 1088.65 grams held the balance jewellery of 2863.25 grams as unexplained jewellery. Since the total jewellery found at 3619.170 gram as evident from the Annexure J-1 & J-2 prepared during the course of search which

Smt. Sangeeta Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1639/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Kailash Ahuja, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Dehradun

In the result, for statistical purposes, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 8350/DEL/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Kailash Ahuja, C/O- Matta Garg & Co., Central Circle, 15 Astley Hall, Dehradun, Dehradun Uttarakhand Pan :Azqpa1158E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. S.K. Matta, Ca Department By Sh. S.K. Chaterjee, Cit(Dr)

Section 132Section 132aSection 143(3)

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 3. Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance challenging unexplained jewellery addition of Rs.7,67,395/- made in the course of assessment framed on 21st December, 2017, we note that the CIT(A) has granted part relief to her, reading ... present case 4 | P a g e addition of 90gms cannot be sustained. In totally, it is viewed that out of 413.15gms of unexplained jewellery, 90gms does not pertain to the appellant, therefore, addition to the extent of 323.18gms (413.18-90) can only be made in spite

Mr.B.Kunhi Ahmed, Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 386/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)

challenging the Order passed by the CIT(A) confirming the addition of jewellery of 100 gms and 600 gms which were considered as unexplained jewellery in the hands of the assessee, in the case of Smt. Nadia and Mrs. Mehtab respectively The learned Counsel for the assessee has also raised ... explained jewellary. It is instruction to the search authorities not to seize the specified quantity of jewellry but it does not say about unexplained jewellery found during the course of search and seizure operations. Further, in repect of additional grounds raised bythe assessee regarding protective assessment, the learned DR submitted

Shantilal Hirji Savla, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos 357 to 363/Mum/2025 are allowed

ITA 363/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: BEFORESHRI NARENDA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinodkumar Bindal (virtually appeared) a/w Shri Satish KumarFor Respondent: Shri Dr Kishore Dhule - CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 250Section 56Section 69

respect of notional interest of Rs. 3,54,73,133/- on alleged loan advanced and an addition of Rs. 10,42,509/- towards unexplained jewellery aggregating to 136.88 grams under section 69A of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had duly explained the source and ownership ... interest of Rs. 3,54,73,133/- is hypothetical and the calculation thereof is arbitrary. Further, the addition of Rs. 10,42,059/- towards unexplained jewellery has been satisfactorily explained in the assessment and appellate proceedings. Considering the family size of seven members, the quantity of jewellery found is within

Shantilal Hirji Savla, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos 357 to 363/Mum/2025 are allowed

ITA 362/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: BEFORESHRI NARENDA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinodkumar Bindal (virtually appeared) a/w Shri Satish KumarFor Respondent: Shri Dr Kishore Dhule - CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 250Section 56Section 69

Shantilal Hirji Savla, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos 357 to 363/Mum/2025 are allowed

ITA 361/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: BEFORESHRI NARENDA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinodkumar Bindal (virtually appeared) a/w Shri Satish KumarFor Respondent: Shri Dr Kishore Dhule - CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 250Section 56Section 69

Shantilal Hirji Savla, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos 357 to 363/Mum/2025 are allowed

ITA 360/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinodkumar Bindal (virtually appeared) a/w Shri Satish KumarFor Respondent: Shri Dr Kishore Dhule - CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 250Section 56Section 69

Shantilal Hirji Savla, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos 357 to 363/Mum/2025 are allowed

ITA 359/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinodkumar Bindal (virtually appeared) a/w Shri Satish KumarFor Respondent: Shri Dr Kishore Dhule - CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 250Section 56Section 69

Shantilal Hirji Savla, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos 357 to 363/Mum/2025 are allowed

ITA 358/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: BEFORESHRI NARENDA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinodkumar Bindal (virtually appeared) a/w Shri Satish KumarFor Respondent: Shri Dr Kishore Dhule - CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 250Section 56Section 69

Shantilal Hirji Savla, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos 357 to 363/Mum/2025 are allowed

ITA 357/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: BEFORESHRI NARENDA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinodkumar Bindal (virtually appeared) a/w Shri Satish KumarFor Respondent: Shri Dr Kishore Dhule - CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 250Section 56Section 69

Rekha Modi, Delhi vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4559/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Rekha Modi Vs. Jcit Central Circle -1 E-380, First Floor, Greater Noida Kailash Part-I, New Delhi Pan No.Aaepm8105E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153BSection 153DSection 156Section 69A

facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,15,898/- on account of unexplained jewellery as found during the course of search. (ii) That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the aforesaid additions despite the assessee ... Central Range Meerut u/s.153D of the Act, by making an addition of Rs.5,86,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act on account of unexplained jewellery. 4. Aggrieved from the order AO, the assessee was filed the appeal before the CIT(A) who vide his order dated 29-09-2021 partly

M/S. Esteem Steel (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 401/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(1)

jewellery found during search operation. 5.122 Therefore, addition of Rs.1,70,73,279/- made by the A.O. under section 69A on account of unexplained jewellery, is deleted and these grounds of appeal are hereby allowed.” 5. With regard to cash deposit of Rs.2,50,000/-, ld. CIT (A) deleted

Sh. Sridhar Pandey, Auraiya vs. A.C.I.T.-2, Agra

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 492/AGR/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Apr 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.492/Agr/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) Shri Sridhar Pandey Acit-2, बनाम/ S/O Late Sh. Babu Ram Pandey Agra Vs. Muradganj, Distt. Auriya (Up). "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aljpp-4364-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2003-04 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Agra [Cit(A)] On 31-03-2012 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 153A Of The Act On 06-12-2006. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared For Assessee. Accordingly, The Appeal Was Heard With The Able Assistance Of Ld. Cit-Dr Who Pleaded For Dismissal Of The Appeal. 2. From Case Records, It Could Be Ascertained That The Assessee Was Subjected To Search U/S 132 On 03-03-2005 & Notice U/S 153A Was Issued On 24-01-2006. The Assessee Initially Filed Return Of Income On 30- 03-2005 I.E., Before Issuance Of Notice U/S 153A. In Response To Notice U/S 153A, The Assessee Offered The Same Income. The Ld. Ao, After Rejecting

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153A

made addition of peak of bank deposits and also made addition of unexplained expenses / payments for Rs.52.20 Lacs. Finally, addition of unexplained jewellery was made for Rs.3.71 Lacs. Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A) deleted all the additions except for sustaining addition of Rs.15.15 Lacs out of addition of Rs.52.20

Ch.Chandrasekhar Naidu, Proddatur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-(2), Hyderabad

ITA 834/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)Section 37

extent of 500 gms, could be possessed by an ordinary family. The intention behind such circular was, therefore, very clear. As the unexplained jewellery found during the course of search was much less than 500 gms., we have no hesitation in holding that the addition on account of unexplained investment

Raghunandan Bhomia, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal grounds

ITA 5724/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

requested for the reasons recorded; and secondly, he has challenged the addition of Rs.34,69,337/- on account of unexplained money u/s.69A and unexplained jewellery. 3. The brief facts are that assessee is an individual and was under the employment of Yashovardhan Birla group. A search action u/s.132 was carried ... also disclosed additional Income of Rs. 9,38,980/ on account of cash found and pay order of Rs.4,02,332/- on account of unexplained jewellery for tax in his hands on the basis of cash 8 Raghunandan Bhomia and jewellery items found from his residential premises, still the source

Prakash Kapoorchand Kothari, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3082/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, CA and Shri Vipul Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 131Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69A

facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in making the additions u/s 69A in the year under consideration as unexplained jewellery in the assessment order which is confirmed by the L.d. CIT(A). 2.0 On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the order passed

Goutam Kumar Ranka, Bhilwara vs. ACIT, Central Cirlce, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1487/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR (Thru” VC)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 156Section 226(3)

search and the difference between the value is on account of rate taken for valuation of inventory. Therefore, addition made on account of unexplained jewellery and valuation discrepancies is unwarranted and deserves to be deleted.’’ 10 SHRI GAUTAM KUMAR RANKA VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER 3.3 During the course

Paras Mal Jain, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1469/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR (Thru' V.C.)

Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271A

pertaining to the search and seizure action and pertaining to assessment proceedings have not been placed on record during the appellate proceedings. The unexplained jewellery found during the course of search and seizure action also falls under the definition of undisclosed income as given in Clause (c) of the Explanation

Kailash Aggarwal, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1358/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1358/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Kailash Aggarwal, The Acit, # 3301/2, Gurdev Nagar, बनाम Central Circle-1, Ludhiana Ludhiana Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aenpa4308J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)

circumstances of the case and in law Ld AO and erred in making addition of Rs 37,26,000/- on account of alleged unexplained jewellery found in the residential premises of the assessee at the time of search. The Ld. CIT Appeal has directed the AO to re compute