Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Vinod Jindal,Faridabad, Haryana vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 28 April, 2026
P a g e |1
ITA No.2085/Del/2025
Vinod Jindal (AY 2013-14)
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"G" BENCH, DELHI
BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
&
SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 2085/Del/2025
(Assessment Year: 2013-14)
Vinod Jindal Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
H. No.1203A, Tower C-3, Income Tax,
SRS Pearl Heights, Faridabad
Sector-87, Faridabad
121007
थायीले खासं . /जीआइआरसं . /PAN/GIR No: AENPJ 1202Q
Appellant .. Respondent
Appellant by : Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv.,
Sh. Somil Agarwal. Adv. &
Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv.
Respondent by : Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing 05.03.2026
Date of Pronouncement 28.04.2026
ORDER
PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM:
The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order dated 28.01.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon (hereinafter P a g e |2 ITA No.2085/Del/2025 Vinod Jindal (AY 2013-14) referred to as "Ld. CIT(A)"), u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), arising out of assessment order dated 30.03.2023 of the Ld. Assessing Officer/the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle Faridabad,(hereinafter referred to as "Ld. AO"), u/s 153A r.w.s. 254 of the Act for Assessment Year 2013-14.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, a search and seizure operation u/s 132(1)(A) of the Act was carried out in case of assessee's residential as well as business/office premises of M/s SRS Group on 09.05.2012. Assessment jurisdiction of the assessee was transferred to Ld. AO vide order u/s 127 of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad dated 08.02.2013. Notice u/s 142(1) dated 01.07.2014 was issued. The assessment was completed u/s 153B r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 27.02.2015 and assessed income of Rs.33,79,234/- against the returned income of Rs.9,25,050/- filed on 07.07.2014. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued. 2.1. Against order dated 27.02.2015 of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 21.12.2016. Assessee filed appeal before ITAT, New Delhi which was decided vide order dated 30.06.2022 in ITA No.839/Del/2017. As per directions of Hon'ble P a g e |3 ITA No.2085/Del/2025 Vinod Jindal (AY 2013-14) ITAT fresh opportunity was provided to the assessee vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 18.11.2022. With regard to addition made of Rs.23,54,184/- during the proceedings assessee filed documentary evidences. 2.2 On completion of proceedings Ld. AO vide order dated 30.03.2023 made addition of Rs.23,54,184/-.
3. Against order dated 30.03.2023 of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 28.01.2025.
4. Being aggrieved, appellant-assessee preferred present appeal on following grounds:-
1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in assuming jurisdiction u/s 153A r.w.s 254 and framing the impugned assessment order is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds.
2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, the assessment framed under section 153A r.w.s. 254 of the Act, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in making addition of Rs.23,54,184/-, as alleged on account of unexplained investment in jewellery and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without any basis, material or evidence and without observing the principles of natural justice and by disregarding the submissions, evidences and material placed on record by the assessee and without providing the adverse material on record and without any incriminating material found as a result of search warranting such addition and merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures.
P a g e |4 ITA No.2085/Del/2025 Vinod Jindal (AY 2013-14)
4. That in any case and in any view of the matter, Ld. CIT(A) confirming the action of the Ld. A.O.in making an addition of Rs. 23,54,184/- is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in passing the impugned assessment order obtained approval u/s 153D is without DIN and hence is bad in law and thus, Assessment Order passed is "without the valid approval u/s 153D", more so in view of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, dated 14.08.2019 & also Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ashok Commercial Enterprises vs. ACIT dated 04.09.2023 & other High Court decisions.
6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in passing the impugned assessment order without there being requisite approval in terms of section 153D and in any case approval if any is mechanical and without application of mind and is no approval in the eyes of law.
7. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in charging interest, more so when such interest could not be levied under the law.
8. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in passing the impugned order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard and in gross violation of principles of natural justice.
9. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.
5. Ld. Authorized Representative for the appellant-assessee at the time of hearing submitted that, ground of Appeal Nos.5 and 6 qua Section 153D were not pressed.
5.1. Ld. Authorized Representative for the appellant-assessee submitted that, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming action of Ld. AO in making addition of P a g e |5 ITA No.2085/Del/2025 Vinod Jindal (AY 2013-14) Rs.23,54,184/- on account of unexplained investment recording incorrect facts and findings in the second round of litigation. 5.2. Ld. Departmental Authorities failed to consider CBDT instructions and receipt/invoices submitted by the assessee. The documents showed purchase of jwellery and the bank statement showed corresponding withdrawals. 5.3. Total jewellery found from the assessee and his wife as per panchnama (PB 10) was 1152.778 grams, i.e. 1153 grams. Assessee has got two sons Mr. Mayank and Mr. Mukul and therefore, there are four members in his family. Detailed and comprehensive documents were filed in the form of affidavits from the relatives deposing the gift of this much of jewellery to the assessee and family on various ceremonial occasions. Ld. AO accepts the fact of receipt of jewellery from the relatives on various occasions. It is submitted that even Board Instruction No. 1916, dated 11.05.1994 supports the case of the Assessee as total jewellery treated as received on various occasions as per Board Instruction No. 1916, 950 grams in the case of the assessee and other family members come to 800 grams (500+100+100+100). There is no evidence required for this much of jewellery. Therefore, the addition made by AO out of such gifted jewellery on the ground that the relative donors were P a g e |6 ITA No.2085/Del/2025 Vinod Jindal (AY 2013-14) not having the evidence of acquisition of jewellery at their and could not be made. The total jewellery which is deemed to be explained as per Board Instruction No. 1916, dated 11.05.1994 as having been received on various ceremonial occasions comes to 800 grams (500+100+100+100) and if this 800 grams @ Rs. 2376 per grams, it comes to Rs. 21,88,800/-, which means that in view of CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dt. 11.05.1994 and following judicial decisions, jewellery to the tune of Rs. 21,88,800/- stands explained. 5.4. Reliance is placed on:
Commissioner of Income Tax-1 v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain, [2010] 339 ITR 351 (Gujarat) CIT vs. MS Aggarwal (HUF) (2008) 11 DTR 169 (MP) Smt. Sulochna Devi Jaiswal vs. Dy. CIT, 90 TTJ 974 (Jab) Rajendra C. Shah vs. Jt. CIT (2007) 158 Taxmann 170 (Mum) CIT vs. Arjun Dass Kalwani, 101 ITD 337 (Jodh) Smt. Bommana Swama Rekha vs. Asst. CIT, 95 TTJ 885 (Visakha) Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar v. Satya Narain Patni, [2014] 366 ITR 325 (Rajasthan) Neeti Rastogi v. ACIT, Central Circle Meerut, 2696/DEL/2016, ITAT Delhi.
Mrs. Divya Devi v. ACIT Central Circle-1, Faridabad, 6397/DEL/2012 (AY-2010-11), ITAT Delhi.
P a g e |7 ITA No.2085/Del/2025 Vinod Jindal (AY 2013-14) 5.5. It was further explained to AO that about 278.550 grams was purchased by the assessee. Availability of funds together with bills were filed which are enclosed in the paper book.
5.6. In this regard, it is submitted that detailed explanation has been filed to Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) giving the break-up of jewellery received as gifts and jewellery purchased by the assessee and his wife along with the supporting evidences. These are as follows:
5.7. PB 59-60 is the copy of the detailed note on Jewellery showing to whom how much jewellery belonged.
5.8. PB 61 shows the breakup of the jewellery among the members of the family comparing the jewellery received in gifts and jewellery purchased out of savings.
5.9. PB 62 is the chart showing the details of jewellery purchased by the joint family members. It can be seen that the details of purchases made by assessee and his wife are mentioned along with the source of funds, date of purchase, value of jewellery, weight of gold, weight of stones etc. P a g e |8 ITA No.2085/Del/2025 Vinod Jindal (AY 2013-14) 5.10. PB 63 are the details of jewellery received as gifts by the assessee over the years on various occasions.
5.11. PB 64 is the affidavit of the assessee stating that the received approx. 870 grams of gold jewellery from his father as gifts on the occasion of his marriage and the birth of his sons.
5.12. PB 65 is the affidavit of assessee's wife stating that she received approx. 620 grams of jewellery from her father on the occasion of her marriage and the birth of her sons.
5.12. PB 66 is the affidavit of Sh. Kailash Chand i.e. assessee's father-in-law deposing that he gave 620 grams of jewellery to his daughter i.e. wife of assessee, 110 grams of gold jewellery to the assessee as well as 140 grams of gold jewellery to his grandsons i.e. sons of assessee. 5.13. PB 67-70 are the PAN, Aadhar and ITR acknowledgement of Sh.
Kailash Chand i.e. father-in-law of the assessee establishing the identity and creditworthiness of the father-in-law.
5.14. PB 71-72 are the bills of the jewellery gifted by Sh. Kailash Chand.
P a g e |9 ITA No.2085/Del/2025 Vinod Jindal (AY 2013-14) 5.15. In this regard, it is submitted that it is settled law that if a sworn affidavit is presented during the proceedings where no investigation has been made in respect of the contents of the affidavit nor any information has come to light that may be inconsistent with the affidavit. The Ld. AO has to accept the affidavit as is and cannot state that the affidavit is not accurate or misleading. Reliance is placed on Mehta Parikh & Co. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [1956] 30 ITR 181 (SC).
5.16. PB 101-103 is the relevant extract of the bank statement of the assessee and his wife showing the withdrawals 5.17. PB 104-111 are the ITR acknowledgements of assessee's wife. 5.18. PB 112-117 are the invoices of the jewellery purchases made by assessee.
5.19. PB 119-122 is the relevant extract of the submissions filed by the assessee during the first round before Ld. CIT(A) 5.20. In light of the above evidence, it is submitted that the jewellery found in the hands of the assessee stands substantiated.
P a g e | 10 ITA No.2085/Del/2025 Vinod Jindal (AY 2013-14) 5.21. It is further argued that a plain reading of AO's order in the first round would show that he has accepted bills of jewellery received on marriage. 5.22. Further reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Shri Ram Prakash Mahawar v The DCIT, Central Circle, Alwar (Raj) in ITA No. 918/JP/2019 dated 20/02/2020 wherein Hon'ble ITAT has held in para 2.6 of the said decision that reasonable possession of the jewellery as per the customs prevailing in the society is the basis for allowing the benefit of certain quantity of jewellery explained by the CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11-05-1994 which means that the assessee need not to explain the source of jewellery found in his possession to the extent of specified quantity treated as reasonable possession by family members of the assessee. It was further held that the said CBDT Instruction No. 1916 allowing the specific quantity as reasonable and need not to be explained, does not include the jewellery which is otherwise explained by proof of documents of acquisition as well as declared/recorded in the books of account of the assessee. Therefore, the benefit of CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11-05-1994 will not take away the benefit of the explained jewellery acquired by the assessee.
P a g e | 11 ITA No.2085/Del/2025 Vinod Jindal (AY 2013-14) 5.23. Reliance is also placed on Vibhu Aggarwal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, CC-06, New Delhi [2018] 93 taxmann.com 275 (Delhi - Trib.) wherein it has been held that Where Assessing Officer under section 694 made addition on account of jewellery found in search of assessee, since assessee belonged to a wealthy family and jewellery was received on occasions from relatives, excess jewellery was very much reasonable and, thus, no addition under section 69A was called for.
5.24. It is further argued that the Ld. AO has added the value of diamonds studded in the gold jewellery to the income of the assessee. In this regard, it is submitted that the diamonds studded in the jewellery received as gifts cannot be treated as unexplained when the said jewellery has been accepted. 5.25. Reliance is placed on the following decisions:
Smt. Satya Bhalla and Smt. Deepika Bhalla vs. Asst. CIT in ITA Nos.5714- 5715/Del/2015 dated 30.05.2016 (ITAT Delhi) Suresh Bansal vs. DCIT in ITA No. 833/Del/2017 dated 03.11.2021 (IТАТ Delhi) 5.26. Plain reading of table at Pg 2-3 of assessment order in second round would show that AO asked for jewellery purchased by assessee during the AY 2013-14, which infact cannot be confirmed as assessee did not purchase P a g e | 12 ITA No.2085/Del/2025 Vinod Jindal (AY 2013-14) jewellery from these persons during AY 2013-14. Therefore, the alleged non-
confirmation does not go against the assessee. In fact, the vendors have been found even now which shows that the purchase of the assessee is genuine.
6. Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that, order of Ld. AO specifically mentions "providing of fresh opportunity to the assessee and the reasons for the addition".
7. From examination of record, in light of the aforesaid rival contention, it is crystal clear that, Ld. AO vide order dated 30.03.2023 made addition of Rs.23,54,184/- on account of unexplained jewellery is added back to the income of assessee after giving credit of jewellery amounting to Rs.16,06,028/-.
7.1. Total jewellery found from the assessee and his wife as per panchnama (PB 10) was 1152.778 grams, i.e. 1153 grams. Assessee has got two sons Mr. Mayank and Mr. Mukul and therefore, there are four members in his family. 7.2. PB 59-60 is the copy of the detailed note on Jewellery showing to whom how much jewellery belonged.
P a g e | 13 ITA No.2085/Del/2025 Vinod Jindal (AY 2013-14) 7.3. PB 61 shows the breakup of the jewellery among the members of the family comparing the jewellery received in gifts and jewellery purchased out of savings.
7.4. PB 62 is the chart showing the details of jewellery purchased by the joint family members. It can be seen that the details of purchases made by assessee and his wife are mentioned along with the source of funds, date of purchase, value of jewellery, weight of gold, weight of stones etc. 7.5. PB 63 are the details of jewellery received as gifts by the assessee over the years on various occasions.
7.6. PB 64 is the affidavit of the assessee stating that the received approx. 870 grams of gold jewellery from his father as gifts on the occasion of his marriage and the birth of his sons.
7.7. PB 65 is the affidavit of assessee's wife stating that she received approx. 620 grams of jewellery from her father on the occasion of her marriage and the birth of her sons.
7.8. PB 66 is the affidavit of Sh. Kailash Chand i.e. assessee's father-in-law deposing that he gave 620 grams of jewellery to his daughter i.e. wife of P a g e | 14 ITA No.2085/Del/2025 Vinod Jindal (AY 2013-14) assessee, 110 grams of gold jewellery to the assessee as well as 140 grams of gold jewellery to his grandsons i.e. sons of assessee. 7.9. PB 67-70 are the PAN, Aadhar and ITR acknowledgement of Sh. Kailash Chand i.e. father-in-law of the assessee establishing the identity and creditworthiness of the father-in-law.
7.10. PB 71-72 are the bills of the jewellery gifted by Sh. Kailash Chand. 7.11. PB 101-103 is the relevant extract of the bank statement of the assessee and his wife showing the withdrawals 7.12. PB 104-111 are the ITR acknowledgements of assessee's wife. 7.13. PB 112-117 are the invoices of the jewellery purchases made by assessee.
7.14. PB 119-122 is the relevant extract of the submissions filed by the assessee during the first round before Ld. CIT(A).
7.15. Ld. AO gave the breakup of jewellery received as gifts and jwellery purchased by the assessee and his wife along with the supporting evidences.
P a g e | 15 ITA No.2085/Del/2025 Vinod Jindal (AY 2013-14) 7.16. Board Instruction No. 1916, dated 11.05.1994 supports the case of the Assessee as total jewellery treated as received on various occasions as per Board Instruction No. 1916, 950 grams in the case of the assessee and other family members come to 800 grams (500+100+100+100). 7.17. A coordinate Bench in Vibhu Aggarwal Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax in ITA No.1540/Del/2015 in order dated 04.05.2018 held as under:-
.......
6. We have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the orders of the authorities below and the case laws referred by Assessee's counsel. We find that in this case a search & seizure operation under section 132 of the IT Act was conducted at the business premises of M/s Best Group and as well as in the residential premise of the Directors on 28.03.2011, in consequence to which the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny. The AO called for an explanation during the assessment proceedings explaining all the items of jewellery found during the course of search. In reply, the assessee explained that the jewellery belongs to the assessee's parents, their HUF, assessee's family members and his HUF. Most of the jewellery items were inherited from his grandparents and received as gifts on the occasion of marriage and birth of his children and also gifts were received on marriage anniversary, birthdays of children etc. and there was no occasion to file the wealth tax as the net wealth did not exceed the minimum limit prescribed under the Wealth Tax from period to period in each case, therefore neither the assessee nor his family members were assessed to wealth tax. The AO has completed the assessment by making an addition of 40,73,373 on account of unexplained investment in jewellery. The total jewellery found during the course of search was 2531.5 gms, out of which the AO has given assessee the benefit of 950 gms, as per the CBDT Instruction No. 1916 on account of wife and two children of the assessee. We further note that in appeal Ld. CIT(A) has further allowed the benefit of 600 gms. Of jewellery on account of mother and father of the assessee, holding that the same was allowable to the assessee as per the CBDT Instruction No. 1916, but however, sustained the balance addition made by the AO, vide order dated 22.12.2014, treating the P a g e | 16 ITA No.2085/Del/2025 Vinod Jindal (AY 2013-14) balance jewellery weighting 1050 gms of gold as unexplained, without appreciating the fact that assessee belongs to a wealthy family where gifting of jewellery possessed by each of the family members; all the family members as well as the HUF were assessed to tax separately; the assessee has been married from the past 18 years, and also had two children, the jewellery was gifted/inherited to the assessee and his wife by their parents and grandparents and other relatives at the time of their marriage, and also on several occasions after that, such as birth of their two children, marriage anniversaries etc. Also some of the jewellery was purchased by assesse's wife out of the cash gifts received by her from the relatives on various occasions. We also observe that that the CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.5.1994 vide para no. (iii) stipulates as under:
"The authorized officer may, having regard to the status of the family, and the custom and practices of the community to which the family belongs and other circumstances of the case, decide to exclude a larger quantity of jewellery and ornaments from seizure."
6.1 In view of above instructions, the excess jewellery found in the case of assessee, his parents, his wife, their children and the HUF was very nominal, and was very much reasonable, keeping in mind the riches and high status and more customary practices. Our aforesaid view is fortified by following decisions/judgments:-
(1) Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Ashok Chaddha (supra) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has accepted the jewellery of 906.60 grams in the case of married lady even without documentary evidence as the denying the explanation would tantamount to overlooking the realities of life by holding as under-
"As far as addition qua jewellery is concerned, during the course of search, jewellery weighing 906.900 grams of the value amounting to Rs. 6,93,582 was found. The appellant's explanation was that he was married about 25 years back and the jewellery comprised "streedhan" of Smt. Jyoti Chadha, his wife and other small items jewellery subsequently purchased and accumulated over the years. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the above explanation on the ground that documentary evidence regarding family status and their financial position was not furnished by the appellant. The Assessing Officer accepted 400 grams of jewellery as explained and treated jewellery amounting to 506.900 grams as unexplained and made an ad hoc addition of Rs. 3,87,364 under section 69A of the Act working on unexplained jewellery, by applying average rate of the total jewellery found. The relevant portion of the assessment order reads as follows:-
"a very reasonable allowance of ownership of gold jewellery to the extent of 400 grams is considered reasonable and the balance quantity of 506 grams by applying average rate, the unexplained gold jewellery is considered at Rs. 3,87,364 (506/900 x 6,93,582) u/s 69A of the Act."
P a g e | 17 ITA No.2085/Del/2025 Vinod Jindal (AY 2013-14) The CIT (A) confirmed this addition stating that the Assessing Officer had been fair in accepting the part of jewellery as unexplained. The ITAT has also endorsed the aforesaid view. Learned counsel for appellant Ms. Kapila submitted that there was no basis for the Assessing Officer to accept the ownership of the gold jewellery to the extent of 400 grams only as "reasonable allowance" and treat the remaining jewellery of Rs. 506.900 as unexplained. She also submitted that another glaring fact ignored by the Assessing Officer as well as other authorities was that as the department had conducted a search of all the financial dealings which were within his knowledge and no paper or document was found to indicate that this jewellery belonged to the appellant and that it was undisclosed income of the assessment year 2006-07. In a search operation, no scope is left with the tax department to make addition on subjective guess work, conjectures and surmises. It was also argued that jewellery is "streedhan" of the assessee's wife, evidenced in the form of declaration which was furnished by mother-in-law of the assessee stating that she had given the jewellery in question to her daughter. She argued that it is a normal custom for a woman to receive jewellery in the form of marriage and other occasions such as birth of a child. The assessee had been married more than 25-30 years and acquisition of the jewellery of 906.900 grams could not be treated as excessive.
3. Learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand relied upon the reasoning given by the authorities below. After considering the aforesaid submissions we are of the view that addition made is totally arbitrary and is not founded on any cogent basis or evidence. We have to keep in mind that the assessee was married for more than 25-30 years. The jewellery in question is not very substantial. The learned counsel for the appellant/assessee is correct in her submission that it is a normal custom for woman to receive jewellery in the form of "streedhan" or on other occasions such as birth of a child etc. Collecting jewellery of 906.900 grams by a woman in a married life of 25-30 years is not abnormal. Furthermore, there was no valid and/or proper yardstick adopted by the Assessing Officer to treat only 400 grams as "reasonable allowance" and treat the other as unexplained", Matter would have been different if the quantum and value of the jewellery found was substantial.
4. we are, therefore, of the opinion that the findings of the Tribunal are totally perverse and far from the realities of life. In the peculiar facts of this case we answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue thereby deleting the aforesaid addition of Rs. 3,87,364.
5. Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms."
Jurisdiction High Court in the case of Sushila Devi (supra) wherein it has been held as under-
P a g e | 18 ITA No.2085/Del/2025 Vinod Jindal (AY 2013-14) "The income tax authorities rationale or justification is entirely insubstantial. The assessee says that she was married in mid 1960s and her daughters were born in 1967. She was 70 when these proceedings were started. The income tax authorities do not deny this. In the circumstances, the further explanation that the jewellery belonged to her and represented accumulations of gifts received from family members over a period of time, and also acquired during the subsistence of her marriage is reasonable and logical [para 9].
The assessee's explanation is justified and reasonable. Her contention that the gold jewellery was acquired through gifts made by relatives and other family members over a long period of time, is in keeping with prevailing customs and habits. The obdurate refusal of the respondents to release the jewellery constitutes deprivation of property without lawful authority and is contrary to article 300A of the Constitution of India. The petition has to succeed; a direction is issued to the income tax authority to release the jewellery within two weeks and in that regard intimate to the assessee the time and place where she (or he representative) can received it [para 10]." (1) ITAT, Delhi decision in the case of Suneela Soni (supra) wherein the Tribunal has accepted the jewellery in excess of limits specified in the CBDT Instruction No. 1916, by following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chaddha (Supra).
6.2 After perusing the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court as well as the ITAT, Delhi, we are of the considered view that facts and circumstances of the present case are similar to the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Tribunal, hence, the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions. 6.3 Keeping in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the status of the family and on the anvil of the judgement of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Ashok Chaddha (Supra) & of Sushila Devi (supra) and the ITAT Delhi decision in the case of Suneela Soni (supro), the explanation given by the assessee's counsel is accepted. Accordingly the orders of the authorities below are cancelled and addition made by the AO and partly confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of balance jewellery weighting 1050 gms of gold as unexplained is hereby deleted.
8. In view of above material facts and by following the judicial precedent, it is held that the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.23,54,184/- being illegal, is set aside.
P a g e | 19 ITA No.2085/Del/2025 Vinod Jindal (AY 2013-14)
9. Therefore, ground of appeal Nos. 1 to 4 and 7 to 9 are accepted.
10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28.04.2026
Sd/- Sd/-
(S. Rifaur Rahman) (Vimal Kumar)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated 28.04.2026
*Mittali, Sr. PS
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITAT NEW DELHI