A search under Section 132 was conducted on the Passi family group, during which substantial jewellery, cash, and foreign currency were found from residential premises and lockers. The Assessing Officer treated part of the jewellery as unexplained on the ground that item-wise reconciliation with wealth tax returns and purchase invoices was not satisfactory. Accordingly, additions were made under Section 69A in the hands of various family members, including Shri Nitin Passi, Smt. Roshni Passi, and Smt. Swarn Lata Passi.

On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) granted partial relief by reducing the jewellery addition but sustained certain additions relating to cash and other items. Both the assessees and the Revenue challenged the order before the Tribunal, raising issues relating to unexplained jewellery, cash, and foreign currency transactions.

Central Issue: Whether jewellery found during the search should be assessed individually in the hands of each family member or collectively for the entire family, and whether additions under Section 69A were justified.

Tribunal’s Ruling: The Tribunal held that where family members live jointly and jewellery is intermingled, it should be assessed collectively rather than individually. Statements recorded during the search supported that jewellery of different members was kept together in common places. On examining records, the Tribunal found that the total jewellery declared in wealth tax returns and other disclosed sources exceeded the jewellery found during the search. It was observed that minor item-wise discrepancies are natural due to valuation differences, mixing of sets, and embedded stones and cannot justify additions.

Accordingly, additions sustained by the CIT(A) on account of jewellery were deleted, and the Revenue’s appeals were dismissed. Regarding cash, the Tribunal accepted the explanation that it belonged to family members and group entities, supported by cash books and withdrawal records. Since aggregate balances matched, the addition was deleted. The deletion of additions relating to foreign currency was also upheld, as supporting documents and bank withdrawal details were furnished. Therefore, the assessee’s appeals were partly allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals were dismissed.