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 members. Out of this, 1334.141 grams ...