“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

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.

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.

Prayag Tendu Leaves Processing Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax

400 ITR 120 · 2018 · High Court

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

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 Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bhupati Infrabuild Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 899/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, D.R

Section 132ASection 153C

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT

DCIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bhupati Infrabuild Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 898/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, D.R

Section 132ASection 153C

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT

DCIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bhupati Infrabuild Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 897/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, D.R

Section 132ASection 153C

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT

ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. Fancy Devi., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3245/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms. Padmavathy Sacit, C. Circle-2(1), Fancy Devi, Room No.804,8Thfloor, B-502, Oberoi Sky बनाम/ Oldcgoannexbuilding, Heights, Cross Road, Vs. M.K.Road, Lokhandwala, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aegpj5895J (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri.Ankush Kapoor.DRFor Respondent: Shri.Mahaveer Jain.AR

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

ACIT Central Circle-2 (1), Mumbai vs. Shri Ramesh Kumar Jain, Mumbai

ITA 3244/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Jain, A.R. &For Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra, D.R

Section 131Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Capacit"E Infraprojects Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2016-

ITA 906/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sareen a/w

Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Capacit'E Infraprojects Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2016-

ITA 905/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sareen a/w

Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Capacit'E Infraprojects Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2016-

ITA 904/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sareen a/w

Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

DCIT Central Circle-13, New Delhi vs. Nirmal Kumar Minda, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1060/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Nirmal Kumar Minda Acit Central Circle-13 House No.A-15, Ashok Vs New Delhi Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi-110052 Pan No.Afypm4910J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dy. Cit Central Circle-13 Sh. Nirmal Kumar Minda New Delhi Vs House No.A-15, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi-110052 Pan No.Afypm4910J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 69B

that all the family members are residing at one place and can be considered as one family unit. The comparative chart of overall jewellery found during search and declared in the Wealth Tax Return of the family members is as under :- 11. From the above chart it can be seen ... that the jewellery declared/ disclosed by the family as one unit is more than the jewellery found during search. 12. In our considered opinion in the light of the aforementioned chart we do not find any merit in making any addition on account of unexplained jewellery. 13. We further find

Nirmal Minda, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-13, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1511/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2023AY 2018-19

Section 132Section 69B

Ajay Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, CC- 1, New Delhi

In the result appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 4009/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

against the returned income at Rs. 6,82,500/-. 2. making an addition of Rs. 18,66,200/- on account of jewellery found during search proceedings on 07.08.2013 treating the same as unexplained. 3. charging interest u/s. 234A and 234B of the Act. ITA Nos.4002 to 4009/Del/2017 Page

Ajay Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, CC- 1, New Delhi

In the result appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 4008/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

Ajay Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, CC- 1, New Delhi

In the result appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 4007/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

Ajay Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, CC- 1, New Delhi

In the result appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 4006/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

Ajay Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, CC- 1, New Delhi

In the result appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 4005/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

Ajay Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, CC- 1, New Delhi

In the result appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 4004/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

Ajay Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, CC- 1, New Delhi

In the result appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 4003/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

Ajay Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, CC- 1, New Delhi

In the result appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 4002/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

Aniruddha N. Malpani, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC - 3 (2), Mumbai

ITA 3924/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153C

reply given by the Assessee, the Learned Departmental Representative submitted that specific queries regarding jewellery found during search, capital gains arising from sale of plot at Pune, income arising from sale of shares in off-market transaction to Mr. Viren Gandhi, Chartered Accountant and share transaction carried by the portfolio

Anjali A. Malpani, Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC- 3(2), Mumbai

ITA 3917/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153C