← All Phrases

“jewellery found during search”

Search & SeizureSection 132Section 132146 judgments

The decision most relied on for jewellery found during search is Ashok Chaddha v. ITO (337 ITR 399), cited in 252 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on jewellery found during search

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.

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.

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.

Prayag Tendu Leaves Processing Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax
400 ITR 120 · 2018 · High Court
18
citing judgments

When assessing a partnership firm, the Assessing Officer can inquire into the source of credits introduced by partners, but cannot be compelled to investigate the 'source of the source' of those partners' funds under Section 68.

Vibhu Aggarwal v. DCIT
122 ITR 14 · 1980 · High Court
17
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer must consider the status, customs, and traditions of a family when appreciating the source of jewellery found during a search.

Judgments citing jewellery found during search

DCIT, Chennai vs. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, Chennai

ITA 1264/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1253, 1264 & 1271/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Central Circle -2(3), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, 1St Main Road, Adyar, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 020. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Abfps-1422-E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri. Shrenik Chordia, Ca. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am: The Present Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 06.02.2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld.Cit(A), Chennai, In Respect Of The Assessment Order Dated 01.03.2019 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(3) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) For The Assessment Year 2017-18 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Assessment Year) U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act). :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

gram amounting to Rs.29,05,610/- of jewellery is not being explained in the books of accounts. Out of the total jewellery found during search, the ‘A’ submitted that only 9,142.8 gms of gold jewellery 199.38 carats of diamonds found at her parents residence to have belonged

DCIT, Chennai vs. Jagathrakskan Srinisha, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 1253/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1253, 1264 & 1271/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Central Circle -2(3), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, 1St Main Road, Adyar, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 020. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Abfps-1422-E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri. Shrenik Chordia, Ca. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am: The Present Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 06.02.2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld.Cit(A), Chennai, In Respect Of The Assessment Order Dated 01.03.2019 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(3) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) For The Assessment Year 2017-18 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Assessment Year) U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act). :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

gram amounting to Rs. 29,05,610/- of jewellery is not being explained in the books of accounts. Out of the total jewellery found during search, the ‘A’ submitted that only 9,142.8 gms of gold jewellery 199.38 carats of diamonds found at her parents residence to have belonged

Sunil Kumar Gattani, Jaipur vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 2, Jaipur

In the result ground no. 7

ITA 1142/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 115BSection 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

bills were also found which were seized as Annexure AS Exhibit 1, Page 45 to 57. However, these bills did not match with jewellery found during search. Hence, credit of same was not given to appellant and jewellery valued Rs.99,29,064/- was seized considering the same as investment from ... investment in jewellery for current year i.e. A.Y. 2018-19 During assessment proceedings, the appellant was asked to produce the source of excess jewellery found during search. In reply, the appellant stated that appellant and his wife acquired certain gold jewellery from time to time out of their disclosed sources

Satish Sawarmal Saraf, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-4(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 5540/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 69A

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

ACIT, C R Building vs. Gurpreet Kochar, K.G.Marg

In the result, Revenue’s appeal ITA No

ITA 3465/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18

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

main objection of the AO was that the appellant was not able to give one to one reconciliation between the declared jewellery and jewellery found during search and since all the members of the family stay under one roof and exchange of jewellery among the family members is a common ... also well settled law that where gross weight of jewellery disclosed in regular returns was in excess of gross weight of jewellery found in search, no seizure/addition is permissible. However, the value of diamond studded in gold jewellery is determined only by estimation and actual value of demand studded cannot

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Surat vs. Vikas Nangalia, Surat

In the result, appeal of revenue and CO of assessee are dismissed

ITA 972/SRT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.972/Srt/2024& Assessment Year: 2020-21 (Physical Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Vikas Nangalia बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, D-1112, Canal Road, Surya Green Vs. Surat Room No.508, Majura View, Vesu, Surat-395 007 Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpn 1361 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) ""ा"ेप सं /Co No.26/Srt/2024 (A/O Ita No.972/Srt/2024) Assessment Year: 2020-21 Vikas Nangalia Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ D-1112, Canal Road, Surya Green Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. View, Vesu, Surat-395 007 Surat Room No.508, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpn 1361 L (Co-Objector) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.848/Srt/2024& Assessment Year: 2021-22 Deputy Commissioner Of Vikas Nangalia बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, D-1112, Canal Road, Surya Green Vs. Surat Room No.508, Majura View, Vesu, Surat-395 007 Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpn 1361 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Ramesh Malpani, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

that the total gold jewellery considering CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994 and VDIS declaration comes to 2531.280 grams as against which, gold jewellery found during search is 1893.728 grams. Similarly, total quantity of diamond jewellery and silver articles as per VDIS declaration, Will and purchase bill comes ... respectively found during search. Considering all these facts and evidences, the CIT(A) held that the assessee had reasonably explained the source of jewellery found during search and deleted the addition made by the AO. 21. Before us, the ld. CIT-DR supported the addition made

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate vs. Vikas Nangalia, Vesu Surat, Gujarat

In the result, appeal of revenue and CO of assessee are dismissed

ITA 848/SRT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.972/Srt/2024& Assessment Year: 2020-21 (Physical Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Vikas Nangalia बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, D-1112, Canal Road, Surya Green Vs. Surat Room No.508, Majura View, Vesu, Surat-395 007 Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpn 1361 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) ""ा"ेप सं /Co No.26/Srt/2024 (A/O Ita No.972/Srt/2024) Assessment Year: 2020-21 Vikas Nangalia Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ D-1112, Canal Road, Surya Green Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. View, Vesu, Surat-395 007 Surat Room No.508, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpn 1361 L (Co-Objector) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.848/Srt/2024& Assessment Year: 2021-22 Deputy Commissioner Of Vikas Nangalia बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, D-1112, Canal Road, Surya Green Vs. Surat Room No.508, Majura View, Vesu, Surat-395 007 Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpn 1361 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Ramesh Malpani, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

that the total gold jewellery considering CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994 and VDIS declaration comes to 2531.280 grams as against which, gold jewellery found during search is 1893.728 grams. Similarly, total quantity of diamond jewellery and silver articles as per VDIS declaration, Will and purchase bill comes ... respectively found during search. Considering all these facts and evidences, the CIT(A) held that the assessee had reasonably explained the source of jewellery found during search and deleted the addition made by the AO. 21. Before us, the ld. CIT-DR supported the addition made

Rajesh Poddar, Surat vs. ACIT Central Circle-4, Surat

In the result, assessee's appeal is dismissed

ITA 547/SRT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21
Section 143(3)Section 292CSection 69BSection 69C

decision of the CIT(A) in restricting the addition made by the AO of Rs.3,48,27,683/- on account of unexplained jewellery found during search and seizure actions to only Rs.24,58,397/- by the CIT(A). On other hand, the assessee has challenged even the addition of Rs.24 ... these reasons, purchases from 6 parties have not been accepted by the AO. Moreover, contention of the assessee that the quantity (weight) of jewellery found during search and seizure actions is tallying with and is not more than the weight of jewellery explained as per the evidences furnished was also

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

cogent reason. Further, the addition was made entirely in the hands of the assessee without proving the facts the whatever alleged excess Jewellery found during search pertaining to assessee only. 3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming ... source of Jewellery is not correct. 13 ΙΤΑ Νο. 972 Το 974/JPR/2025 Vinay Dugar, Jaipur. (ii) a) S. No. The detailed of Jewellery found during search viz a viz the source of availability of the Jewellery with assessee group is as under: - Detail of Jewellery found: - Place where from

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

cogent reason. Further, the addition was made entirely in the hands of the assessee without proving the facts the whatever alleged excess Jewellery found during search pertaining to assessee only. 3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming ... therefore the finding of Ld. A.O. that the assessee could not produce the source of Jewellery is not correct. (ii) The detailed of Jewellery found during search viz a viz the source of availability of the Jewellery with assessee group is as under: - a) Detail of Jewellery found: - | S. | Place

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

cogent reason. Further, the addition was made entirely in the hands of the assessee without proving the facts the whatever alleged excess Jewellery found during search pertaining to assessee only. 3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming

Lakhvir Kaur, Mohali vs. DCIT/ACIT(Cen)-2, Chandigarh

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are

ITA 1165/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Sept 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 65BSection 69C

judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ashok Chaddha v. ITO [2011 (7) TMI 142], wherein it was held that jewellery found during search, not being very substantial, could not be treated as unexplained, especially considering that the assessee was married for more than 25-30 years

Lakhvir Kaur, Mohali, Chandigarh vs. DCIT/ACIT(Cen)-2 Chd, Chandigarh

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are

ITA 1164/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Sept 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 65BSection 69C

judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ashok Chaddha v. ITO [2011 (7) TMI 142], wherein it was held that jewellery found during search, not being very substantial, could not be treated as unexplained, especially considering that the assessee was married for more than 25-30 years

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

family members, the jewelries were found within norms and accordingly ld. CIT (A) has deleted the abovesaid additions made relating to jewellery found during search. However, with regard to watches, all the watches found at this address were presumed to be belonged to the assessee alone. Considering the factual matrix

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

order of the Id.CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee had failed to satisfactorily establish the source of the 389 grams of jewellery found during search, and therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Id.CIT(A) was in accordance with law. 62. We have carefully considered

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

order of the ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee had failed to satisfactorily establish the source of the 389 grams of jewellery found during search, and therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) was in accordance with law. 62. We have carefully considered

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

order of the Id.CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee had failed to satisfactorily establish the source of the 389 grams of jewellery found during search, and therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Id.CIT(A) was in accordance with law. 62. We have carefully considered

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

order of the ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee had failed to satisfactorily establish the source of the 389 grams of jewellery found during search, and therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) was in accordance with law. 62. We have carefully considered

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

order of the ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee had failed to satisfactorily establish the source of the 389 grams of jewellery found during search, and therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) was in accordance with law. 62. We have carefully considered

Sundaram Sankar Anand, Karur vs. Assistant Commissioner, Coimbatore

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

ITA 2850/CHNY/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025AY 2012-2013

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

order of the ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee had failed to satisfactorily establish the source of the 389 grams of jewellery found during search, and therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) was in accordance with law. 62. We have carefully considered