Nirmal Puri Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court considered an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act challenging the concurrent findings of the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal treating 426 grams of gold bullion as unexplained. The appellant, a 70-year-old lady, contended that she lived in a joint family and had received gold ornaments and jewellery from her parents, in-laws, husband, son and other family members. It was submitted that the total gold found in the locker was 1,242 grams, comprising ornaments belonging to the appellant and her daughter-in-law, and therefore could not be regarded as excessive. It was further argued that despite this explanation, the Assessing Officer, by order dated 29.03.2022, treated 426 grams of gold as unexplained, and the addition was subsequently affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 16.07.2025 and by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 23.12.2025.
The Revenue submitted that all the authorities had concurrently held against the appellant and emphasised that the disputed asset consisted of four 24-carat gold bars rather than gold jewellery. It was pointed out that the authorities had accepted the explanation regarding the gold ornaments and had made no addition in respect of those ornaments, whereas only the gold bars were treated as unexplained.
The High Court observed that the addition related specifically to the value of the gold bars and held that no interference was warranted with the concurrent findings. It further held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the appeal, along with the pending application, was dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the authorities below have erred in rejecting concurrently treating the small quantity of bullion (426 grams) to be unexplained.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the appellant/assessee is 70 year old lady, residing with her family and that in a family set-up in an Indian society, a lady receives gold ornaments and jewellery not only from her parents but also from her in-laws and other family members, including son apart from her husband.
3. He submitted that the total gold found in the locker was 1242 grams, including gold ornaments belonging to the appellant as well as her daughter-in-law, which cannot be said to be excessive. Yet, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 29.03.2022 found 426 grams of gold to be unexplained and made an addition in the hands of the appellant. Such addition, despite the satisfactory explanation furnished by the appellant, was affirmed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide order dated 16.07.2025 so also by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 23.12.2025.
4. Mr. Gaurav Gupta, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent, submitted that all the authorities have concurrently held against the appellant. He pointed out that what was found in appellant’s locker was 4 gold bars of 24-carat and not gold jewellery. He pointed out that the authorities have treated the gold bars to be unexplained, while the ornaments have been held duly explained and no addition in that regard was made in the hands of the appellant/assessee.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the addition made in the hands of the appellant pertains to the value of the gold bars, we are of the view that no interference is warranted in the appeal that has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, as no substantial question of law arises for our consideration.
6. The appeal is dismissed along with pending application.
