IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shri Mukesh Srichand The Deputy Goklaney, Commissioner of #7/15, Palace Cross Income Tax, Road, Central Circle –

Bengaluru – 560 020. 2(2), Vs.

PAN: ADQPG6042H Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Shri Hemant Pai, CA &

Assessee by :

Ms. Sakshi Deshpande, CA Shri Sankar Ganesh D, Addl.

Revenue by :

CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 11-08-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 07-11-2025

ORDER

PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-15, Bengaluru dated 19/03/2025 in respect of the A.Y. 2019-20 and raised the following grounds:

“1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Bengaluru, ("CIT(A)"), under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), insofar as it is prejudicial to the Appellant, is contrary to law, the weight of evidence, principles of natural justice and preponderance of probabilities on the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made in respect of the seized jewellery to the extent of 352 gram of gold and 53.43 carat diamond, aggregating to Rs. 30,12,068/-under section 69 of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the rigours of section 69 of the Act are not attracted to the impugned addition on the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition in respect of seized cash amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- under section 69A of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the rigours of section 69A of the Act are not attracted to the impugned addition on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The Appellant craves to add, alter, modify, substitute, change and delete any of the grounds before or at the time of hearing the appeal.

In the view of the above, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed in entirety in the interest of equity and justice.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 30/08/2019. The said return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for compulsory scrutiny based on the search conducted on 20/07/2018. Based on the result of the search, the AO had made an addition u/s. 69A in respect of the cash found at the time of search. Similarly, an addition u/s. 69 was made based on the gold jewellery and diamond jewellery found and seized at the time of search. As against the said additions, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and raised the legal grounds against the search and also raised grounds on merits. The Ld.CIT(A) had rejected the legal grounds whereas partly allowed the grounds raised by the assessee on merits.

3. As against the said order, the present appeal has been filed before this Tribunal.

4. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) had not considered the gold jewellery given by his mother-in-law to his wife which was given at the time of their marriage. The Ld.AR further submitted that the assessee is an affluent Sindhi business family and therefore gifting the jewellery on several occasions is their customary practice and therefore the 352 grams of gold and 53 carats of diamond for a family of four could not be treated as unexplained. The Ld. also relied on the CBDT Guidelines/Instructions dated 11/05/1994 in No.1916 about the seizure of the jewelleries. Insofar as the addition of Rs. 5 Lakhs, the Ld.AR submitted that the cash seized was out of their savings and it only constitutes about 2% of the aggregating returned income of Rs. 2,43,92,690/- offered by their family members during the preceding 5 years. The Ld.AR also filed a synopsis and also a paper book in support of this contention and prayed to