No addition u/s 69A for undisclosed Jewellery as family inheritance and household withdrawals were sufficient to explain sources

Vinay Dugar Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur)

Conclusion: Tribunal held that CBDT Instruction No. 1916 could not override valid documentary evidence explaining jewellery ownership. Since assessee furnished genuine and verifiable documents establishing lawful acquisition, the addition of ₹41,48,824 on account of alleged unexplained jewellery was unwarranted and deleted in full.

Held: A search under section 132 was conducted at the premises of the assessee and his family. Jewellery aggregating 4984.78 grams was found from residence and bank lockers of various family m

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.