It begins with a wedding. There’s laughter, there’s gold, and there’s that slightly proud moment when the bride’s side ensures the locker gets a little heavier. Years pass, jewellery accumulates — gifts, inheritances, ‘it-just-matched-my-saree’ purchases — and then one fine morning, the department rings the bell. What follows is not a matrimonial dispute, but a fiscal one: how much is too much to keep? Welcome to the curious case of Streedhan — a sacred right in our cultural fabric, and an often-taxed mystery in assessment files.
It wasn’t long before the sparkle of tradition caught the glint in the department’s eye. What began as a sacred custom — jewellery given to a woman at marriage and celebrated through generations — gradually became an audit trigger. The department, with all due reverence, seems to believe that behind every necklace lies a potential concealment. And so began the historic standoff: on one side, cultural legacy; on the other, capital gains logic. While grandmothers blessed their daughters with bangles, the taxman blessed them with notices. For every claim of ‘Maa ke zamane ka haar,’ there emerged a counterclaim of ‘Where is the source and supporting evidence?’ The result? Streedhan has found itself precariously balanced — between Godh Bharai and guidelines, between rituals and reports.
What is Streedhan? – Cultural and Legal Context
At its core, Streedhan is not just a collection of ornaments — it is a deeply embedded cultural concept, signifying the wealth voluntarily given to a woman at the time of her marriage and throughout her life, from her parents, in-laws, relatives, and even friends. It represents emotional security, social recognition, and in many cases, financial independence. It is her absolute property, to be held, worn, gifted, or bequeathed as she chooses — a legal and moral right enshrined not just in tradition but in jurisprudence.
The Supreme Court in Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar (1985) left no ambiguity, declaring that Streedhan is a woman’s exclusive property, and she retains full ownership even if it is kept in the custody of her husband or in-laws. It is not to be confused with dowry, nor is it a family asset. The law recognises that while the custom is sentimental, the ownership is absolute.
In short, while the origins of Streedhan may lie in cultural rituals, its status as a woman’s lawful, individual asset has been judicially acknowledged — even if the Income Tax Department sometimes insists on examining the receipts behind those rituals.
Tax Law Meets Tradition – When Does Streedhan Become a Problem?
For the longest time, Streedhan stayed out of balance sheets and tax files — quietly nestled in lockers, family traditions, and velvet-lined boxes. But that changed the moment the Income Tax Department began looking at jewellery not just as ornamentation, but as a potential asset class — especially during search and seizure proceedings under Section 132.
The conflict arises under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, which empowers the Assessing Officer to treat any unexplained money, bullion, jewellery, or valuable article as deemed income, if the assessee cannot satisfactorily explain its source. This section becomes particularly potent during searches, where gold, especially in excess of certain thresholds, invites closer scrutiny.
What complicates matters is the burden of proof — once jewellery is found, the onus lies squarely on the assessee to prove ownership, source, and legitimacy. Vague explanations like “gifted at marriage” or “family inheritance” without documentary support are often dismissed as inadequate, especially when the department’s weighing scale is more persuasive than sentiment.
Thus, what begins as a cultural right can swiftly turn into a tax complication — not because Streedhan is illegal, but because its undocumented nature often doesn’t satisfy the cold arithmetic of assessment.
CBDT Instruction No. 1916 (1994) – The Department’s Gold Standard (Almost)
In a rare moment of cultural sensitivity meeting administrative clarity, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) issued Instruction No. 1916 on 11th May 1994 — a circular that has since become the most frequently cited lifeline in jewellery-related assessments.
The Instruction was issued to guide officers during search and seizure operations, clarifying when jewellery should not be seized — even if the assessee cannot immediately explain its source. It lays down the following thresholds:
- 500 grams of gold jewellery per married woman
- 250 grams per unmarried woman
- 100 grams per male member of the family
These limits are not upper ceilings on what can be owned, but rather guidelines for non-seizure. They were framed to account for Indian customs, recognising that families — especially women — commonly possess jewellery through marriage, festivals, inheritance, and gifts.
In practice, this Instruction often serves as the first line of defence — a soft shield of cultural acceptance before the hard numbers begin.
Between Lockers and Lawbooks: Unpacking Judicial Thinking on Streedhan
As the conflict between sentiment and scrutiny unfolds, it becomes essential to ground our understanding in legal precedent. Over the years, a multitude of judicial forums — from Income Tax Appellate Tribunals to High Courts, and even the Supreme Court — have weighed in on what constitutes legitimate streedhan and how jewellery holdings should be treated under tax laws. These decisions have collectively shaped a nuanced legal framework that balances tradition with statutory compliance. In the following section, we trace and consolidate these rulings to better understand the core legal principles that now define this evolving intersection of custom and compliance.
“Show Me the Money, and You Can Keep the Jewellery”
(Principle: Higher Declared Income and Drawings Offer a Buffer)
When jewellery is found during a search, the department often demands invoices, gift deeds, and the odd photograph of a cousin handing over a necklace at a wedding. But courts, thankfully, have taken a more reasonable view — especially when the assessee’s income is high and withdrawals are steady. In Ankur Sharma v. DCIT (ITAT Delhi, 2023), the Tribunal found that the family’s consistent earnings and capital drawings left no room for doubt — and certainly no room for additions under Section 69A. Similarly, in Chandra Pal v. ACIT (ITAT Delhi, 2023), the assessee’s business income and steady lifestyle overruled the department’s suspicion about the family’s jewellery holdings.
The Delhi Bench took the same approach in Kirti Singh v. Assistant CIT (ITAT Delhi, 2023), where part of the jewellery found was attributed to sisters-in-law. The Tribunal looked at the overall income tax returns of the extended family and found the explanation credible, particularly in view of their financial standing.
In Monisha R. Jaising v. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai, 2018), the bench acknowledged that Indian women, commonly recycle old jewellery into new designs, and ruled that the small unexplained portion did not justify addition under Section 69A, given her consistent high income and absence of incriminating evidence.
The Chennai Bench in Kandiah Muthukrishnan v. DCIT (ITAT Chennai, 2024) held that when the family has sufficient declared income and the quantity found isn’t outrageous, there’s little justification for taxing it. Even where the source was gold bonds, like in Rakesh Bansal v. ACIT (ITAT Chandigarh, 2019), the Tribunal gave the benefit of the doubt — noting that you can’t demand fresh documentation when the financial narrative already makes sense.
The consistent thread? If you’ve earned well, withdrawn reasonably, and lived within your means — the jewellery on the shelf doesn’t need to be treated like contraband. Sometimes, income speaks louder than invoices.
“The Circular That Wears the Crown”
(Principle: CBDT Instruction No. 1916 Provides a Safe Harbour)
In the world of tax litigation, few documents have had the staying power — or the protective aura — of CBDT Instruction No. 1916, issued in 1994. Originally framed to guide officers during search and seizure operations, it has evolved into a powerful judicial benchmark even at the assessment stage. The Instruction prescribes non-seizure limits — 500g for a married woman, 250g for an unmarried woman, and 100g for a male family member — and courts have consistently upheld its relevance while interpreting Section 69A.
In Ritu Bajaj v. Dy. CIT (ITAT Delhi, 2018), the Tribunal applied the Instruction directly, holding that jewellery within these limits requires no further explanation. CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain (Gujarat High Court, 2010) went a step further, emphasizing the circular’s binding nature and rejecting revenue’s attempts to make additions when the quantity was well within prescribed thresholds.
The Mumbai Bench echoed the same view in DCIT v. Mehul Johnson (ITAT Mumbai, 2022), where the Tribunal shielded most of the jewellery found across family members using the safe limits from the Instruction — leaving only a couple of unmatched pieces exposed. Recently, in Kirti Singh v. ACIT (ITAT Delhi, 2023), the circular provided refuge for jewellery held by sisters-in-law, with the Tribunal noting that culturally such possessions are expected — and limits under Instruction No. 1916 could not be ignored.
In Rakesh Mahajan & Anr. v. DCIT (ITAT Delhi, 2017), the Tribunal upheld the binding nature of CBDT Instruction No. 1916 (1994) and held that jewellery within the prescribed limits should not be treated as unexplained, especially when found during a search. Similarly, in Chhavi Anand v. ACIT (ITAT Delhi, 2021), the Tribunal reiterated that the Instruction provides a reasonable safe harbour, and additions cannot be sustained when the quantity of jewellery is broadly within those thresholds.
The takeaway? In the eyes of the law, gold may glitter — but not beyond what’s gracefully sanctioned by this ever-resilient circular.
“Decades of Marriage, and You Still Want a Receipt?”
(Principle: Long-standing Marriage & Cultural Accumulation Support Ownership)
In Indian households, jewellery doesn’t accumulate overnight — it weaves itself into the fabric of years. From the early days of marriage through anniversaries, festivals, childbirths, and ceremonies, ornaments arrive without fanfare — often without bills. Yet, during a tax search, the expectation of exhaustive documentation can feel comically out of touch with how Indian families actually operate. Fortunately, the courts have seen this gold story for what it is — cultural continuity, not concealment.
In Ashok Chaddha v. ITO (Delhi High Court, 2011), the department questioned the possession of 906 grams of jewellery. The court firmly rejected the addition, holding that in the context of a long-standing marriage and no history of undisclosed income, such possession was perfectly reasonable. No bills were needed for what time had bestowed.
In Suneela Soni v. DCIT (ITAT Delhi, 2018), the Tribunal accepted the explanation that the jewellery had been accumulated over a long duration of married life, consistent with Indian customs. It held that in the absence of contrary evidence, such possession — spread across decades — could not be treated as unexplained merely because of lack of invoices.
An even earlier recognition came in Tara Devi Goenka v. CIT (Calcutta High Court, pre-1994), where the court acknowledged that over years, women in well-to-do families would naturally accumulate jewellery. The absence of transactional evidence did not override decades of tradition.
Across these judgments, the message is clear: matrimonial gold is often undocumented — but not unexplained.
“My Mother Gave It, My In-Laws Confirmed It — Now You Want an Invoice?”
(Principle: Inheritance and Family Gifting Are Valid Justifications)
In Indian families, jewellery rarely comes with a bill — it comes with a blessing. Passed down through generations or received during life’s many ceremonies, gold is often more an heirloom than an asset. Yet, when unearthed during tax searches, the department often expects these ornaments to be accompanied by forensic proof. Fortunately, the judiciary has repeatedly grounded its rulings in cultural realism.
In Sudha Aggarwal v. DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh, 2022), the assessee explained the presence of jewellery by pointing to inheritance from both her mother-in-law and father-in-law. The Tribunal upheld her claim, observing that such possession was consistent with Indian customs and family structure. It also noted that the department’s valuation appeared exaggerated due to its failure to exclude stone weights.
Veljibhai M. Sheta v. ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad, 2003) dealt with a Will through which jewellery had passed to the assessee. The department attempted to question the source, but the Tribunal upheld the claim based on inheritance, affirming that absence of a wealth tax return could not override credible documentary evidence and long-standing family traditions.
In Raj Kumar Kakrania v. DCIT (ITAT Delhi, 2018), the assessee relied on family gifting practices over time, such as birthday and anniversary occasions. Given the declared income of the family and the nature of events cited, the Tribunal found the explanation plausible.
In Pooja Shree Chouksey v. ACIT (ITAT Indore, 2020), the Tribunal accepted that the jewellery found was accumulated over time and largely received through gifts on various family occasions, including marriage. In Vibhu Aggarwal v. DCIT (ITAT Delhi, 2018), the assessee explained possession of jewellery as received from family members, which the Tribunal accepted in the absence of any contrary evidence. The Rajasthan High Court, in CIT v. Kailash Chand Sharma (Rajasthan HC, 2004), reinforced that jewellery received as gifts and inheritance cannot be treated as unexplained merely due to lack of documentary proof, especially in culturally accepted volumes. In Chhavi Anand v. ACIT (ITAT Delhi, 2021), the Tribunal allowed reasonable credit for jewellery owned by the assessee and also considered jewellery inherited from her late mother, recognising familial transmission of wealth. These rulings affirm that gifting and inheritance are legitimate sources, and when broadly consistent with social and economic background, they cannot be invalidated merely due to absence of invoices or wealth declarations.
Together, these rulings make one more thing clear: not all gold glitters with GST tags — some of it carries family sentiment, and that too, can be legally sound.
“Her Gold Is Not His Problem — And Vice Versa”
(Principle: Separate Identity of Family Members Must Be Respected)
In Indian households, a family locker is often like a group chat — everyone contributes, but no one wants to be responsible for it all. Still, when the tax department opens that locker during a search, they often attribute everything inside to the assessee alone. Fortunately, courts have repeatedly reminded them that custody is not ownership, and family members have individual legal identities — even when they live under the same roof.
In Padam J. Challani v. ACIT (ITAT Chennai, 2023), the assessee explained that the seized jewellery belonged to his wife and daughter. The Tribunal accepted the claim, holding that unless the department could disprove this family-wise segregation, they couldn’t summarily tax it all in the assessee’s hands.
Vijay L. Bhawe v. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai, 2016) followed a similar logic — merely finding jewellery in the husband’s premises does not imply he owns it. Without specific proof of acquisition or ownership, no adverse inference can be drawn.
A foundational ruling came in Asstt. CIT v. Jerambhai Bhimjibhai Patel (ITAT Ahmedabad, 2015), where jewellery found in the house was clearly explained as belonging to the assessee’s wife and other women in the family. The Tribunal observed that gold held in a shared home may belong to multiple persons, and the department cannot presume single ownership without rebutting the explanation. Importantly, it acknowledged that in Indian homes, one member may hold custody of others’ jewellery purely for safekeeping.
In Pr. CIT v. Pradip Jayantilal Karia (Gujarat High Court, 2018), the court held that when jewellery is explained as belonging to multiple family members and no contrary evidence exists, it cannot be taxed solely in the hands of the assessee. Similarly, in CIT v. Satya Narain Patni (Rajasthan High Court, 2014), the court permitted reasonable limits per individual, acknowledging customary family holdings. In Dy. CIT v. N. Muthusamy (ITAT Chennai, 2023), the Tribunal accepted joint family ownership and held that division across members must be respected, especially when supported by family declarations and no evidence of concealment is found.
And in Geeta Subhash Dalal v. DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad, 2025), the Tribunal quashed the addition when jewellery found in the assessee’s home was proved to belong to her NRI daughter, confirming that custodial possession alone doesn’t establish tax liability. Similarly, In Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel v. DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad, 2024), the Tribunal accepted that jewellery received by the daughter-in-law as streedhan remained her exclusive property, even though it was found in the possession of the mother-in-law. The decision reinforced that ownership does not transfer merely due to custody, and streedhan retains its individual character under both social and legal norms.
When it comes to gold, the law is learning to recognise what Indian families have always known: just because it’s in your locker, doesn’t mean it’s yours.
“No Past Declarations? No Problem. That’s Not a Death Certificate.”
(Principle: Supporting Evidence Helps — But Valuation Mismatches and Missing Returns Are Not Fatal)
In search cases, the department often acts like every bangle should come with a bill and every chain with a cross-reference in a wealth tax return. But courts have repeatedly held that valuation mismatches, or even the absence of formal declarations, do not automatically make jewellery “unexplained” — especially when the explanation is consistent and the source is reasonable.
In Shalini Chawla v. ACIT (ITAT Delhi, 2020), the assessee produced details of jewellery received during various ceremonies. The department tried to discredit the explanation due to minor differences in weight and lack of wealth tax filings, but the Tribunal held that these were immaterial — especially when the family was affluent and there was no contrary evidence.
In Nawaz Singhania v. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai, 2017), affidavits from family members supported the claim that jewellery was gifted over the years. The absence of wealth tax returns didn’t bother the Tribunal; what mattered was the consistency of the claim and credibility of the source.
In Nitin Manaktala & Anr. v. DCIT (ITAT Delhi, 2017), the jewellery was supported by explanations that matched family background and cultural practices. The department’s emphasis on valuation and mismatch was dismissed as technical nitpicking in the face of reasonable social context.
The principle is now well-settled: you don’t lose your streedhan just because your tax filing team forgot to list it under a Schedule years ago.
“Missing Jewellery Is Not Capital Gains in Disguise”
(Principle: Mere Absence of Jewellery, without proof of sale, Does Not Trigger Tax Liability)
In Bina Aggarwal v. ACIT (ITAT Delhi, 2019), the department sought to tax the shortfall in declared gold as capital gains, claiming that the jewellery was sold and the proceeds went unreported. However, the assessee had declared a higher quantity of gold earlier, and lesser gold was physically found during the search. The Tribunal rejected the department’s imaginative leap, holding that absence is not proof of sale, and certainly not evidence of undisclosed capital gains.
The ruling draws an important boundary: loss, misplacement, or gifting of jewellery doesn’t automatically imply that the assessee has earned from it. Without evidence of sale or receipt, there’s no basis for assuming capital gains under the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal also cautioned the revenue from drawing speculative inferences in the absence of transactional evidence.
This principle becomes especially important in situations involving family partition, jewellery loans, or simply misplaced heirlooms. Courts have recognised that not all gold is eternal — some of it genuinely goes missing.
CONCLUSION
Sentiment Is Not Exempt from Scrutiny
In the great Indian wedding, gold flows like blessings — unasked, undocumented, and almost divine. But once the taxman enters the frame, the velvet boxes of streedhan are no longer sacred; they’re scanned, weighed, questioned, and sometimes taxed. As the courts have shown, tradition can’t be bulldozed, but neither can it be used as a blindfold. Streedhan enjoys dignity, yes — but not diplomatic immunity.
Judicial pronouncements have struck a pragmatic balance: you don’t need a receipt for every bangle, but you do need a story that makes sense — ideally one supported by your income, social standing, and a little foresight. Because while customs may be ancient, scrutiny is very much modern.
So as families pass down heirlooms wrapped in nostalgia, it might be wise to also wrap a copy of the CBDT Circular with it. Sentiment is beautiful — but in the world of tax, it’s the substantiated sentiment that survives assessment.
In the end, the message is clear: document what you can, explain what you must, and declare what matters — because in today’s world, even gold inherited with love may need to be defended with law.
****
The author CA Ravi Ladia can be reached at ravi@raviladia.in
Author Bio
