POONAM TYAGI,GHAZIABAD V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

ITA 1415/DEL/2022

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by Poonam Tyagi against the orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, Ghaziabad, and the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Kanpur. The appeals pertain to the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, following a search operation at the premises of the VVIP Group of companies, including the residence of Poonam Tyagi. The primary issues in the appeals were the legality of the additions made under section 69C for alleged 'ON MONEY' paid for a flat and the addition under section 69A for undisclosed jewellery. The Tribunal found that the additions were not supported by incriminating evidence directly linked to the assessee and accepted the assessee's explanations regarding the jewellery.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471979 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Other Referred Cases: National Thermal Power Co Ltd. vs CIT 229 ITR 383, Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kabul Chawala 380 ITR 573, Ashok Chaddha V Income tax officer [2011] 14 taxmann. com 57 (Delhi ), Vibhu Aggarwal vs. Deputy commissioner Of Income -tax, CC- 06, New Delhi [2018] 93 taxmann.com275 (Delhi- Trib)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJINDER KAUR
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJEEV KHANDELWAL; JAID JAISWAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources; Documents seized; Gift; Search and seizure; Initiation of penalty proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 119; 250; 153; 132; 153A; 69C; 13; 69A; 153C

Judgement Text

"1 ITA Nos.1415/Del/2022 & 1948//Del/2023 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORESHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1415/Del/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17 ITA No. 1948/Del/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Poonam Tyagi, 119 Radhey Shyam Vihar, Phase-I, Muradnagar, Ghaziabad (UP) Vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad PAN :ADYPT5623K (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PERSUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals), Kanpur-4(hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(Appeals) vide order dated 20-04-2022 pertaining to A.Y. 2016-17 Assesseeby Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, CA & Shri Jaid Jaiswal, Adv. Department by Ms. RajinderKaur CIT DR Date of hearing 07.11.2024 Date of pronouncement 31.12.2024 2 ITA Nos.1415/Del/2022 & 1948//Del/2023 arises out of the order passed by the assessing officer dated 29-12-2018 under Sections 153(A)/ 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. In ITA No.1415/Del/2022 the grounds taken by the assessee are as under: 1 That on the facts of the case and in law the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-4, Kanpur was not justified to confirm the action of the assessing officer to make an addition of Rs. 1,33,00,000/- to the income of the appellant under section 69C of the Act for the alleged- ON MONEY paid to the company for the purchase of the flat. The addition made and confirmed by the CIT(A)-4, Kanpur is illegal, unjustified and bad in law 1a. That on the facts of the case and in law the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)-4, Kanpur was not justified to confirm the addition of Rs. 1,33,00,000/- for the alleged ON MONEY jotted on a loose sheet that did not amount to books of account and found from the residence of third party while no such amount was ever paid by appellant. 1b. That on the facts of the case and in law and under the circumstances, the alleged loose sheet bearing number 26 of Annexure A, even if referred to, was never confronted to the appellant at the time of search and/or no corresponding corroborative document was found from the possession of the appellant at the time of search. The addition confirmed by Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-4, Kanpur, is unjustified, illegal and bad in law. That on the facts of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-4, Kanpur erred to confirm the action of the assessing officer to levy interest under section 234A/B/C by not undertaking proper calculation as provided. Even otherwise the interest levied as a result of order passed under section 153A is unjustified. 3. That the appellant craves, leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, delete and modify any or all the grounds, which are without prejudice to one another, before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 3 ITA Nos.1415/Del/2022 & 1948//Del/2023 3. The ld. counsel for the assessee has filed an application for taking the additional legal ground. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co Ltd. vs CIT 229 ITR 383, the additional ground is admitted for adjudication. 4. The Additional grounds taken by the assessee in ITA No. 1415/Del/2022are as under: The following ground of appeal is independent of, and without prejudice to, the original ground of appeal- The Assessing Officer erred in passing the impugned order under section 153A of the Act. The appellant contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer ought not to have passed the impugned order under section 153A inasmuch as there is no incriminating evidence found during the search operations conducted at her residence and hence, the impugned order is bad in law and needs to be quashed. The appellant further, contends that the Assessing Officer ought to have passed the order under section 153C of the Act inasmuch as the document relied upon by the Assessing Officer, that is Page no 26 of Annexure-A, is found during search operations conducted inter alia at the residential premises of Mr Praveen Tyagi, Chief Managing Director of Messrs Vibhor Vaibhav Infrahome Private Limited. The appellant craves to add to, alter or amend the aforestated additional ground of appeal. 5. The brief facts of the case are the return in this case was originally e-filed on 30.03.2017 declaring income of Rs.22,57,860/-. A Search was conducted at business and residential premises of VVIP Group of companies/ directors, 4 ITA Nos.1415/Del/2022 & 1948//Del/2023 partners and on employees on 03.11.2016. Return was again filed on 05.09.2018 in compliance to notice issued under section 153A of the Act declaring therein income of Rs. 22,57,860/- and the assessment has been completed on total income of Rs. 1.55,57,860/- vide an order passed under section 153A/143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2018 by making an addition of Rs. 1,33,00,000/- for the alleged-ON MONEY deposited by the appellant for the purchase of flat. The addition of Rs. 1,33,00,000/- was made to the income of the appellant on the allegation that as per loose document number 26 found during search, appellant has deposited this amount for the purchase of the flat while the assessing officer has failed to note down the fact that that the appellant had deposited Rs. 86,76,914/- for the purchase of the flat by way of cheque drawn on her bank account. The appellant never paid such cash amount and no corresponding document to corroborate the alleged cash deposit was found at the time of search from possession of the appellant to co-relate the investment. 6. The assessee filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-4, Kanpur and the addition of Rs. 1,33,00,000/- has been confirmed by him vide an order passed by him in appeal number CIT(A)- IV/KNP/10830/2018-19 dated 20.04.2022. 7. Ld. counsel for assessee has submitted that the assessment of unaccounted income under Section 153A of the Act can be framed on any person who has 5 ITA Nos.1415/Del/2022 & 1948//Del/2023 been searched under Section 132 of the Act and incriminating documents of such unaccounted income are recovered from the possession of such person. He has further submitted that the assessment should be passed u/s 153C of the ACT. Reliance has placed on the decision of the Hon’ble HighDelhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kabul Chawala 380 ITR 573.Ld counsel for the assessee further submitted that the recovered document on which basis addition is made was never confronted to the appellant during the course of search. No independent enquiries were made by the assessing officer and even the assessing officer did not examine the appellant before making addition. No corresponding document was found from the possession of the appellant during search to corroborate the jutting on the said loose sheet bearing number 26 of Annexure-A nor this document was confronted to the appellant during search. Without prejudice to the legality of the addition made, the figures alleged to be noted in the document have to be considered as a whole and not by choice since against the name of the appellant, there is an amount shown as refundable to the assessee. 8. The Learned DR supported the action of the lower authorities and found and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal. 9. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. Perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) reveals that no incriminating documents were found during the search operation at the residential premises of the 6 ITA Nos.1415/Del/2022 & 1948//Del/2023 assessee. The Assessing officer has completed the assessment under section 153 A of the Act. 10. Further, the provisions as contained under Sections 153A and 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are reproduced for the sake of convenience and clarifications: “153A. Assessment in case of search or requisition. Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years referred to in clause (b), in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139, (b) assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made : Provided that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within such six assessment years: Provided further that assessment or reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section pending on the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate. Explanation. For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that,- 7 ITA Nos.1415/Del/2022 & 1948//Del/2023 (i) save as otherwise provided in this section, section 1538 and section 153C, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to the assessment made under this section; (ii) in an assessment or reassessment made in respect of an assessment year under this section, the tax shall be chargeable at the rate or rates as applicable to such assessment year. 153C. Assessment of income of any other person - Notwithstanding anything contained in section 130, section 147, section 148,section 140, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money bullion jewellery or other valuablearticles or thing or books of accounts or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or belong to a person other than the person referred to section 153A, then the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against each such other person and issue such other person notice and assess or reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A.” 11. During the search no incriminating document regarding the unaccounted income was recovered from the possession of the assessee. The document/loose slip identified as number 26 of the Annexture was found from the possession of the other person. The AO should have made the assessment u/s 153C of the Act. The assessment made by the AO u/s 153A of the Act is not as per law, because no incriminating document was recovered from the possession of the assessee during the search. Therefore, the legal issue raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed. 8 ITA Nos.1415/Del/2022 & 1948//Del/2023 12. In the view of the above discussion and above referred to decision the legal issue raised by the is allowed, Because the legal issue is adjudicated in favour of the assessee need not to be adjudicated upon. 13. In ITA No.1948/Del/2023, the following grounds taken by the assessee are as under: “1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - III, Noida (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)) erred in upholding the action of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) in framing an assessment order under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. The appellant contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in framing the order under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act inasmuch as no incriminating documents are found during the course of search and seizure operations carried out on the appellant and hence, the impugned assessment order is bad in law and needs to be quashed. 2. The Assessing Officer and the appropriate authority under section 153D erred in not properly complying with the provisions of section 153D of the Act. The appellant contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer and the appropriate authority under section 153D ought to have appropriately complied with the provisions of section 153D of the Act by due application of mind, and having not so complied, the impugned assessment order is bad in law and needs to be quashed. 3. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs 50,16,941 under section 69A of the Act, on account of alleged undisclosed jewellery found during the search and seizure operations. 9 ITA Nos.1415/Del/2022 & 1948//Del/2023 The appellant contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in making the impugned addition of Rs 50,16,941 under section 69A of the Act, on account of alleged undisclosed jewellery. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter or amend the aforestated grounds of appeal.” 14. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Noida -3 vide order dated 17-05-2023 pertaining to A.Y. 2016-17 arises out of the order passed by the assessing officer dated 29-12-2018 under Sections 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 15. The facts in brief in this case are that return in this case was originally e-filed on 27.03.2018 declaring income of Rs. 33,69,110/-. A search was conducted at business and residential premises of VVIP Group of companies/ directors, partners and on employees on 03.11.2016 As a result of search, notices were issued under section 153A of the Act in the name of different parties in earlier years. A warrant was issued in the name of the assessee and search was conducted at the residential premises of the assessee at Gali NO 4 Plot 112 Radhey Shyam Vihar, Phase -1 Murad Nagar Ghaziabad and at locker no. 29&74 of Punjab & Sindh Bank Muradnagar, Ghaziabad approximately 2128 gms of jewellery was found. The assessment has been completed on total income of Rs. 83,86,050/- vide an order 10 ITA Nos.1415/Del/2022 & 1948//Del/2023 passed under section 143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2018 by making an addition of Rs. 50,16,941 for the alleged unexplained investment in jewellery of 1428.018gms after giving the exemption of 700 gms, as per CBDT instruction No. 1916 dated 11-04-1994 on account of husband and one child of the assessee. 16. Aggrieved the order of the ld AO the assessee has filed the appeal before the Ld CIT(A) who vide his order dated 17-05-2023 dismissed the appeal against which the assessee is in appeal before us. 17. Ld counsel of the assessee has stated that the lower authorities have wrongly upheld the addition on account of purported unexplained jewellery claimed by the assessee without appreciating the fact that the jewellery found during the course of search and seizure operation was divided in between to the assessee’s husband and brother by his father as per the deed of the will because at the time of death of his father, the assessee’s husband was unmarried, and gifted other relatives at the time of the marriage, and also on several occasions after that such as birth of the their child ,marriage anniversaries etc. It was further submitted that excess jewellery found 11 ITA Nos.1415/Del/2022 & 1948//Del/2023 in the case of assessee was very nominal. It was also stated that as per the CBDT instruction that in case of a family having high status and more customary practices a larger quantity of jewellery and ornaments can be accepted by the Department. In the support of the contention the Ld.AR Ld AR relied upon the following cases laws: 1. Ashok Chaddha V Income tax officer [2011] 14 taxmann. Com 57 (Delhi ) dated 05-07-2011 in this case the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that Section 69A- “Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Unexplained moneys - Assessment year 2006-07- During a search at assessee's residential premises, 906.900 gms jewellery was found from assessee assessee explained that he was married 25 years back and jewellery was received by his wife in form of 'stree dhan' or on other occasions such as birth of a child, etc. Assessing Officer accepted only 400 gms of jewellery as explained and treated 506.900 gms of jewellery as unexplained and, accordingly, made addition under section 69A Whether collecting jewellery of 906.900 gms by a woman in a married life of 25 years in form of istree dhan or on other occasions is abnormal Held, no Whether therefore, Assessing Officer was unjustified in treating only 400 gms. as 'reasonable' and treating remaining jewellery as 'unexplained' - Held, yes Whether, therefore, addition made was to be deleted. Held, yes [In favour of assessee]” 2. Vibhu Aggarwal vs. Deputy commissioner Of Income -tax, CC- 06, New Delhi [2018] 93 taxmann.com275 (Delhi- Trib).In this case the Tribunal held as under: 12 ITA Nos.1415/Del/2022 & 1948//Del/2023 “Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Unexplained moneys (Jewellery) Assessment year 2011-12 During search at assessee's residential premises, Jewellery of 2531.5 gms. was found Assessing Officer had given assessee benefit of 950 gms. on account of wife and two children and balance was added as unexplained investment under section 69A Assessee belonged to a wealthy family where gifting of jewellery possessed by each of family members was customary and jewellery was gifted to assessee and his wife by their parents and grandparents and other relatives at time of their marriage, and also on several occasions after that, such as birth of their two children, marriage anniversaries, etc. Whether in view of Instruction No. 1916, dated 11-5-1994, excess jewellery found in case of assessee, was very nominal, and was very much reasonable and, thus, keeping in mind high status and more customary practices addition was to be deleted Held, yes [Para 6.1][In favour of assessee] 18. Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. She has stated that total jewellery found during the course of search was 2128.018 gmsout of which the AO has given the benefit of 700 gms as per CBDT Instruction No 1916 dated 11-04-1994 on account of husband and one child of the assessee. She has supported the order of the lower authorities. The notification issued by the CDBT as under: \"Notification: No. 347(E), dated 20-5-1978 “Guidelines for seizure of jewellery and ornaments in course of search instances of seizure of jewellery of small quantity in course of operations under section 132 have come to the notice of the Board. The question of a common approach to situations where search parties 13 ITA Nos.1415/Del/2022 & 1948//Del/2023 come across items of jewellery, has been examined by the Board and following guidelines are issued for strict compliance: (i) In the case of a wealth-tax assessee, gold jewellery and ornaments found in excess of the gross weight declared in the wealth-tax return only need be seized; (ii) In the case of a person not assessed to wealth-tax gold jewellery and ornaments to the extent of 500 gms per married lady, 250 gms. per unmarried lady and 100 gms per male member of the family need not be seized. (iii) In all cases, a detailed inventory of the jewellery and ornaments found must be prepared to be used for assessment purposes\" JUDICIAL ANALYSIS EXPLAINED IN-The above instructions are explained in Horakchand N. Jain v. Asstt. CIT [1998] 61 TT) (Mum.) 223, with the following observations: (i) \"(ii) A perusal of the above circular shows that in case of person not assessed to wealth-tax gold jewellery and ornaments to the extent of 500 gms. per married lady. 250 gms, per unmarried lady and 100 gms. per male member of the family need not be seized. It further provides that having regard to the status of the family and custom and practice of the community to which the family belongs the officer may exclude a large quantity of jewellery and ornaments and seizure. In the present case. there are four male members in the family, the assessee and his threeCITIA)-/NOIDA//10847/DC/T- CC/Ghaziabad/2018-19 sons. Similarly, there are two 14 ITA Nos.1415/Del/2022 & 1948//Del/2023 married ladies and one unmarried lady. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the jewellery of the assessee and his wife was low and was received by various occasions, like marriage delivery, birth, etc. and the jewellery belonged to the children was also received in similar occasions. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative argued that the assessee has not provided any evidence to explain the source of the investment in the jewellery. (ii) (iii) On careful consideration of the rival submission we find that the assessee has not placed on record any evidence to prove that the jewellery has been received as gift by him by producing the GT return or any other evidence. However, we are conscious of the fact that in Indian society everyone receives gifts at the time of marriage and other occasions. Therefore, keeping in view the number of family members we are of the view that further rebate of 500 gms out of the entire jewellery may be treated as explained. The balance 426 gms of jewellery may be treated as addition under section 69A of the income-tax Act”. 19. We have heard the parties and perused the materials available on record. 20. The Ld.CIT(A) confirmed this addition stating that the Assessing officer had been fair in accepting the part of jewellery as unexplained. Ld CIT(A) has observed in his order as under : “6.6 From the facts of the case, it has been found that during the search operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 15 ITA Nos.1415/Del/2022 & 1948//Del/2023 conducted at the premise of the assessee at Plot No. -112, Gali No. 04, Radhey Shyam Vihar, Phase 1, Muradnagar, Ghaziabad and at locker No. 29 and 74 of Punjab & Sindh Bank, Muradnagar, Ghaziabad 2128 gms of jewellery weighing 2128.018 gms valuing Rs. 74,76,195/- was found. The ownership of the jewellery was decided based on the statement given by the appellant and ownership of the locker, which were in the name of the appellant and thus there is no dispute that entire jewellery belonged to Smt. Poonam Tyagi ie the appellant. During the search proceedings and later on assessment proceedings the appellant was asked to explain the source of investment in the jewellery but no compliance was made in this regard. In the appellate proceedings. Ld. AR has submitted that the jewellery was part of istridhan of the appellant since she was from a well-placed business class family. Ld. AR also submitted that part of this jewellery was received from the will of parents and in-laws besides casual gifts at the time of marriage and other ceremonial family occasions Ld AR submits that the husband of the appellant Sh. Munesh Tyagi has substantial agricultural lands in the town ship of Muradnagar and the family derives substantial agricultural income from the land held since ages Most of the land area has been inherited by the assessee under will from his father Sh. Hari Ram Tyagı. Ld.AR has also submitted that the father had also left will that the gold ornaments and the land held by them shall be divided equally between the younger two sons namely Sh Gyan Dutt Tyagi and Sh. Monesh Tyagi who were left unmarried at the time of the death of their mother. However Ld. AR could not furnish any wealth tax return of the father of Sh. Munesh Tyagi le Sh. Hari Ram Tyagi or that of Sh. Munesh Tyagi or even that of the appellant. Smt. Poonam Tyagi from which it may be conclusively established that they owned some jewellery, The appellant also could not furnish any bill or valuation certificates of earlier dates from which it may be conclusively proved that the appellant inherited the jewellery under consideration. The 16 ITA Nos.1415/Del/2022 & 1948//Del/2023 copy of Will of Sh Han Ram Tyagi furnished by the appellant was not registered and hence Ld. AO has not accepted the same. From the facts of the case it has been found that during search proceedings and post search investigation, no such plea has been taken by the appellant that the jewellery under consideration was inherited by the appellant Further during assessment proceedings, no such explanation was furnished by the appellant Therefore looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, decision of the Ld. AO to allow only that part of the jewellery, which was entitled in accordance to provisions of Instruction no 1916 dt. 11.05 1994 is considered and balance jewellery is considered to have been purchased from undisclosed sources. Ld. AO has allowed 700 gms on account of the appellant (500 gms.) her husband Sh. Munesh Tyagi (100 gms) and Son Sh. Adhaar Tyagi (100 gms) as explained and balance jewellery weighing 1428.018 gms. (2128.018 gms-700 gms.) has been considered as unexplained. This decision of Ld AO is upheld. Therefore addition of Rs. 50,16,941- is hereby upheld. 6.7 Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, addition of Rs. 50,16,941/- made uls 69A of IT Act on account of jewellery found in the residence and two lockers of the appellant is hereby upheld. All the concerned grounds of appeal are adjudicated accordingly 6.8 In the grounds of appeal no (ii) & (iv), the appellant submits that Ld. AO has erredin charging interests u/s 234A, 2348 & 234C of IT Act and in initiating penalty proceeding u/s 271AAB & 271AAC of IT Act. In this regard, Ld. AO is directed to charge the interests u/s 234A 2348 & 234C of IT Act in accordance to provisions of law. In the matter of initiation of penalty proceedings, it is observed that no appeal lies against initiation of penalty proceedings, hence the submission of 17 ITA Nos.1415/Del/2022 & 1948//Del/2023 appellant is not tenable, therefore, the concerned ground of appeal is dismissed” 21. Ld. CIT(A) has considered the explanation and found that the Assessing Officer has rightly allow the part of the jewellery as per the instruction no 1916 dated 11-05-1994 and balance jewellery is considered as unexplained income. The assessee is a married woman but the during the search 2128.018 gmsjewellery was founded which is not excessive. It is true that it is a normal custom for a woman to receive jewellery in the form of the marriage and other occasion such as birth of a child. The assessee has explained the sources of the jewellery which was received him at the time of marriage and other occasion. The l.d.A.R. has filed the income statement of the assessee for five years to show the status of the assessee. The income of the assessee for the A.Y. 2015-16& A.Y. 1016-17 was Rs 36,30761/- and Rs 49,71,290/- respectively. The assessee’s husband had received the jewellery from his father as mentioned in the will. The excess jewellery found from the lockers of the assessee was very reasonable. After perusing the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court as well as 18 ITA Nos.1415/Del/2022 & 1948//Del/2023 the ITAT, Delhi, we are the considered view that facts and circumstances of the present case are similar to the above cited decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and tribunal, hence the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the above cited judgments. 22. 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 Judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chaddha, the explanation given by the assessee is accepted. The addition of Rs 50,16,941/- u/s 69 A of the Act made by the l.d. Assessing officer and confirmed by the L.d. CIT(A) is liable to be deleted and deleted accordingly. 23. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31/12/2024. Sd/- Sd/- (S RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 31st December,2024. Mohan Lal 19 ITA Nos.1415/Del/2022 & 1948//Del/2023 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi "