← 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

Sh. Lalit Maheshwari, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 769/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.S.Seethalakshmi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.769/Jpr/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sh. Lalit Maheshwari, The Dcit, Kalani & Co., Chartered V Central Circle, Kota. Accountants, 5Th Floor, S Milestone Building, Gandhinagar Turn, Tonk Road, Jaipur – 302015. Pan: Acfpm8337H Appellant / Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri P.C.Parwal – Ca Revenue By Shri Arvind Kumar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 05/09/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Udaipur-2 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 22.02.2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,35,659/- U/S 69A Of The Act By Treating The Silver Jewellery Found In Search To This Extent As Unexplained. 2. The Appellant Craves To Alter, Amend & Modify Any Ground Of Appeal. Sh. Lalit Maheshwari, Kota [A]

Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69A

explained in the hands of Shri Lalit Maheshwari and Smt. Seema Maheshwari which may be acquired from time to to me. The remaining unexplained jewellery amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- is added in taxable income of the assessee under section 69A of the I.T.Act, 1961.” 4.3 Thus, AO made addition ... given substantial relief to the assessee. The total value of jewelerry was Rs.25,56,979/-, however, after the ld.CIT(A)’s order, the unexplained jewellery remains only Rs.1,35,659/-. Thus, it can be observed that ld.CIT(A) and AO has already considered the assessee’s submission regarding social status