आयकर अपील(cid:9)य अ(cid:10)धकरण, ‘सी’ (cid:14)यायपीठ, चे(cid:14)नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI (cid:21)ी एबी ट(cid:9) वक(cid:26), (cid:14)या(cid:27)यक सद(cid:29)य एव ं (cid:21)ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद(cid:29)य के सम$

BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:2815/Chny/2025 &

SA No.105/Chny/2025 (cid:27)नधा%रण वष % / Assessment Year: 2021-22 (cid:27)नधा%रण वष % / Assessment Year: 2021-22 (cid:27)नधा%रण वष % / Assessment Year: 2021-22 (cid:27)नधा%रण वष % / Assessment Year: 2021-22 (cid:27)नधा%रण वष % / Assessment Year: 2021-22 (cid:27)नधा%रण वष % / Assessment Year: 2021-22 (cid:27)नधा%रण वष % / Assessment Year: 2021-22 (cid:27)नधा%रण वष % / Assessment Year: 2021-22 अपीलाथ’ क+ ओर से/Appellant by : Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A.

()यथ’ क+ ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT.

सुनवाई क+ तार(cid:9)ख/Date of Hearing : 04.12.2025 घोषणा क+ तार(cid:9)ख/Date of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM:

This appeal and Stay Application filed by the assessee is against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Chennai - 20 (in short “CIT(A)”) passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 08.08.2025 pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22 against the order passed by the ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai, u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2022.

2. The brief facts emanating from the records are that the assessee is an individual and is a partner in the Firms M/s.Shuba Manggalam and M/s.Rajat Emporium. The business in respect of gold ornaments is undertaken by M/s.Shuba Manggalam, (AEBFS1291Q), while the gold-plated silver jewellery business is undertaken by M/s.Rajat Emporium.

3. The assessee was interrogated by the police while he was found carrying gold jewellery on 08^th and 09^th of March 2021 and thereafter the Income-tax Department on being informed, intervened into the process and an enquiry was conducted u/s.131(1A) of the Act. Based on the confession obtained u/s.131(1A) of the Act on 11.03.2021, the jewellery found in the possession of the assessee was requisitioned by the ADIT (Inv.) (OSD) and seized u/s.132A of the Act on 05.04.2021.

4. The Return of Income filed by the assessee for A.Y.2021-22 was taken up for scrutiny and the assessment was concluded, treating the entire jewellery found and seized to be unexplained and was thus brought to tax u/s.69 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act, in the order u/s.143(3) dated 30.12.2022 passed by the ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai.

5. The assessee had preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) and the ld.CIT(A) in the order u/s.250 of the Act dated 08.08.2025, decided the appeal against the assessee and was dismissed.

6. Aggrieved by the said action of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us and had professed the following grounds of appeal:

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income–tax (Appeals) erred in failing to appreciate that the Order passed u/s.143(3) of the Ld. Assessing Officer is erroneous on the facts and the merits of the case and provisions of Law as well and hence requires to be quashed.

2. That the Ld.CIT(A) erred in failing to appreciate that the assessment cannot be made solely based on the confession made while deposing a statement, without being corroborated further.

3. That the Ld.CIT(A) erred in failing to appreciate that an assessment has no legs to stand when the confession is obtained under threat.

4. That the Ld.CIT(A) erred in failing to appreciate that a confession obtained during the period of detention by the police cannot possess evidentiary value, more particularly when it is proven that the same was obtained under excessive coercion.

5. That the Ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of assessment which was framed, ignoring the statement retracted subsequently and the evidences brought on record to adduce the claims and contentions of the appellant ma