https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441532 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. en-us Tue, 08 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Aug 2023 15:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441532 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. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 08 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441532