Explained family jewellery accepted in search assessment; addition for unexplained investment was deleted absent contrary evidence.

Jewellery found during search was explained as family jewellery, and the assessee's husband had already disclosed undisclosed income for the same assessment year that covered the seized jewellery component. The non-seized jewellery was also protected by the search instruction on jewellery, and the assessee, as a married woman from a family where jewellery was commonly interchanged, was entitled to that explanation absent contrary evidence. On these facts, the general burden-of-proof principle did not displace the assessee's explanation, so the addition for unexplained investment in jewellery was deleted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the addition made as unexplained investment in jewellery was sustainable when the seized and non-seized jewellery was explained as family jewellery and a part of it stood covered by the husband's disclosed undisclosed income.

Analysis: The disputed jewellery was found during search from the assessee's locker, but the record showed that the assessee's husband had offered undisclosed income for the same assessment year and had accounted for the jewellery component, including the assessee's seized jewellery. The non-seized portion was also protected by the search instruction on jewellery, and the assessee, being a married woman from a family where jewellery was commonly interchanged, could not be denied that benefit without contrary evidence. The general burden-of-proof principle under the Evidence Act did not displace the assessee's explanation on these facts.

Conclusion: The addition for unexplained jewellery was not sustainable and was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessment was disturbed only on the jewellery issue, but the explanation offered by the assessee was accepted and the disallowance was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where jewellery found in search is credibly explained as family jewellery and is substantially accounted for in the disclosed undisclosed income of a close family member, the addition as unexplained investment cannot be sustained absent contrary evidence.

---