Archive · 11 Oct 2026
ITAT Deletes ₹20.45 Lakh Gold Jewellery Addition
Tax officials found a large amount of gold jewellery at Ankur Sharma’s family home.
The family said the gold had come from inheritance, weddings and gifts over many years.
Officials accepted some jewellery but treated the rest as unexplained because the family did not have old purchase papers.
They added ₹20.45 lakh to Sharma’s taxable income.
The tribunal said the CBDT’s jewellery guidance was not a strict limit on how much jewellery a family could explain.
It also considered the family’s income and financial circumstances.
The tribunal therefore removed the addition in this case.
The ruling does not mean that every family’s jewellery is automatically accepted without evidence.
The Delhi ITAT ruled in Ankur Sharma’s case over jewellery found at his family’s Ghaziabad residence.
During a search, officials found 3,877.5 grams of gold jewellery valued at ₹1.46 crore.
The assessing officer accepted 2,250 grams under CBDT guidance and treated the remaining 1,627.5 grams as unexplained.
The officer added ₹20.45 lakh to Sharma’s income under Sections 69A and 115BBE; the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the addition.
The tribunal said CBDT limits do not cap what taxpayers can explain and ordered the addition deleted, considering the family’s income and circumstances.
- Who
- Ankur Sharma and his family; the Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
- What
- The tribunal deleted a ₹20.45 lakh addition to Sharma’s taxable income relating to gold jewellery treated as unexplained.
- When
- The order was pronounced on 6 October 2023, for assessment year 2019-20.
- Where
- The jewellery was found at the family’s residence in Ghaziabad; the appeal was heard by the Delhi bench of the tribunal.
- Why
- The tribunal found that CBDT jewellery guidance was not a cap on explainable family holdings and considered the family’s financial circumstances and declared income.
Tax department’s position
Sharma’s position and tribunal’s reasoning
Whether the jewellery was adequately explained
Tax department’s position
The tax authorities treated the excess jewellery as unexplained because the family did not provide purchase bills, wealth-tax records or valuation certificates establishing its source and acquisition date.
Sharma’s position and tribunal’s reasoning
The family said the jewellery had accumulated through inheritance, weddings and family ceremonies; the tribunal considered that explanation alongside the family’s financial circumstances and income.
How CBDT guidance applies
Tax department’s position
The assessing officer used the quantities in the CBDT instruction and 2016 press release to accept 2,250 grams and treat the remainder as unexplained.
Sharma’s position and tribunal’s reasoning
The tribunal said the guidance concerned seizure during searches and was not intended to cap the quantity a taxpayer may explain based on the case’s facts.
- Tribunal order
- 6 October 2023; ITA No. 1843/Del/2022
- Assessment year
- 2019-20
- Jewellery found
- 3,877.5 grams, valued at ₹1.46 crore
- Jewellery accepted by assessing officer
- 2,250 grams for nine family members
- Jewellery treated as unexplained
- 1,627.5 grams, valued at ₹61.35 lakh
- Addition to Sharma’s income
- ₹20.45 lakh under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE
- Family financial information noted
- Declared annual incomes of approximately ₹20 lakh to ₹49 lakh in the years examined; cumulative withdrawals exceeded ₹13.50 crore over nine years
- Outcome
- The tribunal directed deletion of the addition in this case