https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413605 The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. It accepted the explanation that the jewellery was family-owned and acquired over time, consistent with cultural practices and CBDT Instruction No. 1916. As a result, the addition of Rs. 23,46,108/- as unexplained investment in jewellery was deleted, and the Tribunal found the affidavits and statements provided by family members credible in establishing ownership of the jewellery. en-us Thu, 30 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Oct 2021 09:05:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413605 The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. It accepted the explanation that the jewellery was family-owned and acquired over time, consistent with cultural practices and CBDT Instruction No. 1916. As a result, the addition of Rs. 23,46,108/- as unexplained investment in jewellery was deleted, and the Tribunal found the affidavits and statements provided by family members credible in establishing ownership of the jewellery. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 30 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413605