ACIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi vs Gurpreet Kochar

“1.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred, in deleting addition of Rs. 1,11,15,429/- on account of unaccounted investment in jwellery u/s 69A of the Act?

2 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred, in deleting addition of Rs. 37,57,693/- on account of unaccounted investment in jwellery u/s 69A of the Act?

3.

That the department craves to add or amend the grounds of appeal before Hon'ble ITAT is finally heard or disposed off.”

“5.

Ground of Appeal Nos. 2 to 2.5 & 5 to 5.1 relate to addition of Rs. 1,11,15,429/-being the amount of unexplained jewellery out of the jewellery of Rs. 1,24,80,429/- found from the possession of the appellant under section 69 (A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and of Rs. 37,57,693/- being unexplained jewellery found from the locker no. 983, Punjab and Sind Bank, Malkaganj. New Delhi jointly held by appellant and Mrs. Gurmeet Kaur.

5.1

The 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 practice therefore total jewellery found should be considered as jewellery of the family.

5.2

Regarding first contention, ideally speaking each item of jewellery should match by description & weight of metal/stones/diamonds. However, considering the social set up & culture of India where the jewellery alterations are very common and prevalent in the society, as per the standard methodology, the next best possible methodology of comparing the jewellery items would be

i.

to compare the Gross Weight of gold jewellery including gold jewellery studded with precious stones found during the search with declared jewellery

ii Loose diamonds to be considered separately.

5.3

The second contention of the appellant is found to be correct as all the Panchnamas have same address of 5. KG Marg, New Delhi.

Analysis and Findings

5.4

It is well settled law hat when the gold jewellery in which the diamonds are studded has been accepted by the department as the jewellery received at the time of marriage or other occasion, then, it cannot be said that the diamond studded in the said jewellery were out of the undisclosed income of the appellant. It is 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 be determined. …………….

5.6

It is observed that the jewellery declared/acquired by the appellant or his family members residing with him at the time of search, in any of the following manner can be considered as source of declared jewellery, in the absence of any specific detect pointed by the AO.

i.

Wealth tax return ii. VDIS 1996 iii. Gift deed iv. Inheritance/Will

v.

purchases where payment has been made through banking channel.

5.7

As per the valuation reports of the departmental valuer, the jewellery found during the search from the family of the appellant is as under:

Sl. No.	Date & Address as per Panchnama	Owner of jewellery as per valuation report	Gross weight of jewellery (in gms)	Total value
1.	01.12.2016 5 KG Marg, Delhi	a) Bupinder singh Kochar & Others	803.450	16,45,839
		b) Gurmeet Kaur Kochar
		c) Achin Kochar
		d) Tarun Kochar
		e) Prateek Kochar
		d) Harshit Kochar
2	22.10.2016 5 KG Marg, Delhi	Satinder Kochar	785.1	69,27,046
3	22.10.2016 5 KG Marg, Delhi	Mohinder Kaur	162.07	8,76,491
4	22.10.2016 5 KG Marg, Delhi	Shelja Kochar	487.36	1,43,85,228
5	23.10.2016 5 KG Marg, Delhi	Prabhnoor Kochar	974.92	2,32,82,699
6	23.10.2016 5 KG Marg, Delhi	Gurpeet Kochar	353.35	1,24,80,428
7	26.10.2016 5 KG Marg, Delhi	Jasmine Kochar	836.31	1,94,11,279
8	26.10.2016 5 KG Marg, Delhi	Harpreet Kochar	954.85	83,39,997
9	26.10.2016 5 KG Marg, Delhi	Gurmeet Kochar	252.84	42,07,831
10	05.12.2016 (Locker no. 7010E)	Tarun Kochar & Gurpreet Kaur	3355.48	75,72,968
11	05.12.2016 (Locker no. 4500D)	Prabhnoor Kochar & Prateek Kochar	1101.4	1,03,91,943
12	05.12.2016 (Locker no. 800E)	Gurpreet Kaur & Harshit Kochar	2568.10	59,86,168
13	09.12.2016 (Locker No. 983)	Gurpreet Kaur	1353.80	37,57,693
Total			13989	11,92,65,610

5.8

Jewellery allowed as per Instruction No. 1916 to the family members of the appellant:

Sr. No.	Name	Relation with appellant	Minimum jewellery as per CBDT instruction no. 1916 (in gms)
1	Harshit Kochar	Nephew	100
2	Tarun Kochar	Nephew	100
3	Prateek Kochar	Nephew	100
4	Prabhnoor Kochar	Daughter-in-Law	500
5	Bhavika Kochar	Niece	250
6	Achin Kochar	Son	100
7	Gavin Kochar	Nephew	100
8	Bhupinder Singh Kochar	Brother-in-law	100
9	Master Guransh Kochar	Grand Nephew	100
10	Master Anhad Kochar	Grand Nephew	100
11	Miss Ameerah Kochar	Grand Niece	250
TOTAL			1800

5.9

The declared jewellery available with the appellant as per Wealth Tax Return is as under:-

S. No.	Name of person	Gross weight of jewellery (Gms)	Value as on 31.03.2012 (INR)	Value as on 31.03.2013 (INR)	Date of filing of Wealth Tax Return	Date of Wealth Tax Assessment Order for AY 2013-14
1	Gurpreet Kaur Kochar	1511.260	33,85,229	35,74,773	31.03.2015	30.03.2016
2	Mohinder Kaur	1516.360	33,96,649	35,86,832	31.03.2015	30.03.2016
3	Jasmine Kochar	1336.850	65,48,763	69,15,438	31.03.2015	30.03.2016
4	Shelja Kochar	2788.730	62,46,762	65,96,527	31.03.2015	NA
5	Kuljeet Singh Kochar HUF	1371.574	30,72,357	32,44,383	31.03.2015	NA
6	Baani Kochar	1550.330	34,72,735	36,67,178	31.03.2015	30.03.2016
7	Harpreet Kaur	2019.414	45,23,487	47,76,764	31.03.2015	30.03.2016
8	Gurmeet Kaur	1904.530	42,66,454	45,05,339	31.03.2015	30.03.2016
9	Aakriti Kochar	1580.348	35,39,985	35,39,985	31.03.2015	30.03.2016
10	Bhupinder Singh HUF	1403.810	31,44,539	35,83,990	31.03.2015	30.03.2016
11	Virender Singh HUF	1773.183	39,71,971	41,94,325	31.03.2015	30.03.2016
12	Satinder Kaur	1805.627	52,05,727	52,05,727	31.03.2015	30.03.2016
TOTAL		20698.51

5.10

The position of total jewellery, found during the course of search and the declared jewellery of the family considered as above, can be summarized as under:

S. No	Description	Gross weight of Gold jewellery in gms.
1	Total Jewellery Found During the Search (para 5.7)	13989.00
2	Total Jewellery as Per WTR (para 5.9)	20698.51
3	Jewellery allowed as per Instruction No. 1916 of family members (para 5.8)	1800.00
4	Total Jewellery allowed (S.No. 2+ S.No. 3)	22498.51

5.11

On the basis of above discussion, It is observed that the declared jewellery is more than the jewellery found during search operation.

5.12

Therefore, addition of Rs.1,70,73,279/- made by the A.O. under section 69A on account of unexplained jewellery, is deleted and these grounds of appeal are hereby allowed.”

“1.

This appeal arises from an order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27. New Delhi dated 05.10.2023.

2.

Ground 1 and 2 of Grounds of appeal raised by revenue relates to the addition of Rs. 1,48,73,122/- (1,11,15,429/- and 37,57,693/-) representing alleged unaccounted investment in jewellery during the year under consideration and brought to tax under section 69A of the Act.

3.

It is submitted that the search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted by the investigation wing on 22.10.2016 on "Sukhija Group of cases" including the assessee.

4.

It is submitted that the assessee was living in the joint family and during the course of search jewellery weighing 325.848 gms valued at Rs. 1,24,80,429/- belong to the assessee found from the premises of the assessee and jewellery amounting to Rs. 37,97,693/- was found from the locker no. 983 at Punjab & Sindh Bank, Malka Ganj, Delhi. (Page 2 of the Assessment order).

5.

It is submitted that the learned Assessing officer considered the CBDT Instruction No. 1916 and press release dated 01.12.2016 and partly granted relief of Rs. 13,65,000/-(2730*500 grams) as mandated by the CBDT instruction and proceeded with making addition amounting to Rs. 1,48,73,122/-(1,11,15,429/- and 37,57,693/-) u/s 69A of the Act.

6.

It is submitted that during the appellate proceeding's assessee had given the complete details and as per wealth tax return assessee had declared 1511.260 grams of jewellery and 20698.51 grams of jewellery by the whole family of the assessee. (Page 29 of CIT order).

7.

Further, it is submitted that total jewellery found during the course of search is much less than the jewellery declared by the family of the assessee in the wealth tax return.(Page 29 of CIT order)

S. No.	Description	Gross weight of Gold Jewellery in Grams
1	Total Jewellery found during the search (Para 5.7)	13989.00
2	Total Jewellery as per Wealth Tax Return (Para 5.9)	20698.51
3	Jewellery allowed as per Instruction no. 1916 of family member (Para 5.8)	1800
4	Total Jewellery allowed	22498.51

8.

It is further submitted that learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A), vide order dated 05.10.2023 has allowed the appeal of the assessee by considering the documentary evidences placed on record and holding that the declared jewellery is more than the jewellery found during the search operation and there is no specific defect pointed by the learned Assessing officer.

9.

Further, it is submitted that this issue is no longer res integra, as in the group cases of the assessee, this issue has been duly decided by the coordinate benches of Hon’ble Tribunal in favour of the assessee in the cases of ITA No. 401/D/2024 (Deptt.) dated 09.07.2025 ITO vs. Jasmine Kaur kochar and ITA No. 5072/D/2024 (Assessee) dated 29.08.2025 Harshit Kochar vs. ACIT.

10.

In view of the aforesaid addition made of Rs. Rs. 1,48,73,122/- and deleted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may kindly be upheld and grounds raised by the revenue may kindly be rejected.

11.

In light of the aforesaid, it is thus prayed that appeal filed by the revenue may kindly be dismissed.”

“9.

Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observe that during search proceedings, gross weight of the jewellery found during search are 13,989 gms. as per the chart reproduced at para 5.7 of the ld. CIT (A)'s order also reproduced above at page 6 of this order and similarly jewellery declared by the family members including the assessee in their wealth tax return are 20,698.51 gms., refer chart reproduced at para 5.9 of ld. CIT (A)'s order reproduced above at page 7. From the above, it is clear that the assessee along with her family members had declared more in their wealth tax return and what was found during search is much less. Since the declaration of the jewellery in the wealth tax return is nothing but jewellery declared to the Revenue. Ld. DR submitted that assessee has filed additional evidences under Rule 46A and Id. CIT (A) has not followed the due procedure. We observe that jewellery under wealth tax return cannot be considered as additional evidence, therefore, it is part of the record as far as Revenue is concerned, therefore, Id. CIT(A) has elaborately discussed and brought on record the declared gross quantity of jewellery under wealth tax return and what was found during search is much less. Therefore, there is no room to make any additions. Accordingly, we do not see any reason to disturb the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and Ground Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the Revenue are dismissed.”