← 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

Anju Bala Sachdeva, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 18, New Delhi

Appeal are hereby partly allowed

ITA 2887/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Acit, Anju Bala Sachdeva, S 286 Ii Floor, Central Circle-18, Greater Kailash Ii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aazps4886P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. S. P. Gogia, Adv. Department By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit(Dr)

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

investment u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961. Hence, all these grounds are cumulatively discussed as under: 4.1 The details of jewellery found during search operation conducted on various members of the Laxmi Remote Group are as under: 2 | P a g e 4.2 It is observed that

Parkash Sachdeva, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 18, New Delhi

ITA 2889/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 69A

unexplained investment u/s 69A r.w.s.115BBE of the IT Act 1961. Hence all these grounds are cumulatively discussed as under: 4.1 The details of jewellery found during search operation conducted on various members of the Laxmi Remote Group are as under: Premises search zd Jewellery Found Seized Prakesh Chand Secacevi, Vijay ... Floor, GK-II, New Delhi 2091.35 8935935 5 Jewellery found in locker no. 348, Punjab & Sindh Bank 882.50 2181689 6 Total Jewellery found during search (1 to 5) 5624.06 22592300 7 Jewellery entitled as per CBDT instruction No.1916 1750.00 8 Jewellery which had remained unexplained (6-7) 3874.06 4.5 From

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Jasmine Kaur Kochar, Delhi

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

ITA 401/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(1)

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 5 family members ... 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

Sanjeev Kumar, Bulandshahr vs. ITO, Ward-4, Bulandshahr

ITA 2898/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT and SHRIS.RIFAUR

ACIT, Central Circle- 14, New Delhi vs. Sanjeev Kumar, Bulandshahr

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 9896/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.29,42,525/- on account of jewellery found during search and that too without any basis, material/evidence available on record and in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. That having regard

ACIT, Central Circle- 14, New Delhi vs. Sanjeev Kumar, Bulandshahr

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 9318/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.29,42,525/- on account of jewellery found during search and that too without any basis, material/evidence available on record and in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. That having regard

ACIT, Central Circle- 14, New Delhi vs. Sanjeev Kumar, Bulandshahr

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 9317/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.29,42,525/- on account of jewellery found during search and that too without any basis, material/evidence available on record and in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. That having regard

Sanjeev Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 filed by the Revenue is partly

ITA 8590/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT and SHRI

Sanjeev Kumar, Bulandshahr Up vs. ACIT, Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 8444/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.29,42,525/- on account of jewellery found during search and that too without any basis, material/evidence available on record and in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. That having regard

Sanjeev Kumar, Bulandshahr vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 14, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 8443/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.29,42,525/- on account of jewellery found during search and that too without any basis, material/evidence available on record and in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. That having regard

Sanjeev Kumar, Bulandshahr vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 14, New Delhi

ITA 8442/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT and SHRIS.RIFAUR

ACIT, Central Circle- 14, New Delhi vs. Sanjeev Kumar, Bulandshahr

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 1553/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.29,42,525/- on account of jewellery found during search and that too without any basis, material/evidence available on record and in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. That having regard

Sanjeev Kumar, Bulandshahr vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 1011/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.29,42,525/- on account of jewellery found during search and that too without any basis, material/evidence available on record and in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. That having regard

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)

ITA No.1646 & 1639/Del/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL

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)

ITA No.1646 & 1639/Del/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL

ACIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi vs. Trinetra Infosystems Pvt.Ltd., Delhi

Appeals are partly allowed and all the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 9097/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 8286 To 8291/Del/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2015-16) बनाम Pradeep Kumar Jindal Acit F-3/12, Model Town, New Central Circle-25, New Delhi / Vs. Delhi, Delhi, Pin 110009. "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan No. : Aaipj8526A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 9095, 4946, 9096 & 4947/Del/2019, (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2016-17) बनाम Acit M/S. Delta Leasing & Central Circle-25, New Finance Ltd. / Vs. Delhi C-55 F.I.E., Patparganj, East Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi - 110092 "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan No. : Aaacd0594K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Yadav, CIT. DR
Section 132(4)

rate of 6% applied for commission earned on accommodation entries provided by way of long term capital gain. Addition on account of jewellery found during search or on the basis of certain ITA Nos. 8286/Del/2018 & 13 Ors. [Pradeep Kumar Jindal & Ors.] - 4 – documents found was also made in the concerned ... accommodation entry provided on long term capital gains. We have noted that addition has also been confirmed on account of jewellery found during search or certain other documents revealing assets owned by the assessee, source of which, remained unexplained. With respect to the same, we direct telescoping the said addition

ACIT CC-25, New Delhi vs. Delta Leasing & Finance Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are partly allowed and all the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 9096/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 8286 To 8291/Del/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2015-16) बनाम Pradeep Kumar Jindal Acit F-3/12, Model Town, New Central Circle-25, New Delhi / Vs. Delhi, Delhi, Pin 110009. "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan No. : Aaipj8526A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 9095, 4946, 9096 & 4947/Del/2019, (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2016-17) बनाम Acit M/S. Delta Leasing & Central Circle-25, New Finance Ltd. / Vs. Delhi C-55 F.I.E., Patparganj, East Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi - 110092 "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan No. : Aaacd0594K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Yadav, CIT. DR
Section 132(4)

rate of 6% applied for commission earned on accommodation entries provided by way of long term capital gain. Addition on account of jewellery found during search or on the basis of certain ITA Nos. 8286/Del/2018 & 13 Ors. [Pradeep Kumar Jindal & Ors.] - 4 – documents found was also made in the concerned ... accommodation entry provided on long term capital gains. We have noted that addition has also been confirmed on account of jewellery found during search or certain other documents revealing assets owned by the assessee, source of which, remained unexplained. With respect to the same, we direct telescoping the said addition

ACIT CC-25, New Delhi vs. Delta Leasing & Finance Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are partly allowed and all the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 9095/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 8286 To 8291/Del/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2015-16) बनाम Pradeep Kumar Jindal Acit F-3/12, Model Town, New Central Circle-25, New Delhi / Vs. Delhi, Delhi, Pin 110009. "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan No. : Aaipj8526A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 9095, 4946, 9096 & 4947/Del/2019, (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2016-17) बनाम Acit M/S. Delta Leasing & Central Circle-25, New Finance Ltd. / Vs. Delhi C-55 F.I.E., Patparganj, East Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi - 110092 "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan No. : Aaacd0594K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Yadav, CIT. DR
Section 132(4)

rate of 6% applied for commission earned on accommodation entries provided by way of long term capital gain. Addition on account of jewellery found during search or on the basis of certain ITA Nos. 8286/Del/2018 & 13 Ors. [Pradeep Kumar Jindal & Ors.] - 4 – documents found was also made in the concerned ... accommodation entry provided on long term capital gains. We have noted that addition has also been confirmed on account of jewellery found during search or certain other documents revealing assets owned by the assessee, source of which, remained unexplained. With respect to the same, we direct telescoping the said addition

ACIT CC-25, New Delhi vs. Focus Industrial Resources Ltd, New Delhi

Appeals are partly allowed and all the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 7758/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 8286 To 8291/Del/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2015-16) बनाम Pradeep Kumar Jindal Acit F-3/12, Model Town, New Central Circle-25, New Delhi / Vs. Delhi, Delhi, Pin 110009. "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan No. : Aaipj8526A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 9095, 4946, 9096 & 4947/Del/2019, (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2016-17) बनाम Acit M/S. Delta Leasing & Central Circle-25, New Finance Ltd. / Vs. Delhi C-55 F.I.E., Patparganj, East Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi - 110092 "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan No. : Aaacd0594K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Yadav, CIT. DR
Section 132(4)

rate of 6% applied for commission earned on accommodation entries provided by way of long term capital gain. Addition on account of jewellery found during search or on the basis of certain ITA Nos. 8286/Del/2018 & 13 Ors. [Pradeep Kumar Jindal & Ors.] - 4 – documents found was also made in the concerned ... accommodation entry provided on long term capital gains. We have noted that addition has also been confirmed on account of jewellery found during search or certain other documents revealing assets owned by the assessee, source of which, remained unexplained. With respect to the same, we direct telescoping the said addition

ACIT CC-25, New Delhi vs. Focus Industrial Resources Ltd, New Delhi

Appeals are partly allowed and all the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 4952/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 8286 To 8291/Del/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2015-16) बनाम Pradeep Kumar Jindal Acit F-3/12, Model Town, New Central Circle-25, New Delhi / Vs. Delhi, Delhi, Pin 110009. "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan No. : Aaipj8526A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 9095, 4946, 9096 & 4947/Del/2019, (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2016-17) बनाम Acit M/S. Delta Leasing & Central Circle-25, New Finance Ltd. / Vs. Delhi C-55 F.I.E., Patparganj, East Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi - 110092 "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan No. : Aaacd0594K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Yadav, CIT. DR
Section 132(4)

rate of 6% applied for commission earned on accommodation entries provided by way of long term capital gain. Addition on account of jewellery found during search or on the basis of certain ITA Nos. 8286/Del/2018 & 13 Ors. [Pradeep Kumar Jindal & Ors.] - 4 – documents found was also made in the concerned ... accommodation entry provided on long term capital gains. We have noted that addition has also been confirmed on account of jewellery found during search or certain other documents revealing assets owned by the assessee, source of which, remained unexplained. With respect to the same, we direct telescoping the said addition