# ITAT Ruling: Married Daughters' Jewellery Ownership at Parental Homes Tribunal clarifies tax implications for storing family jewellery at a common residence. - **Source:** [mint - money](https://www.livemint.com/rss/money) - **Published:** 2026-11-02 - **Topic:** [Finance](https://brifing.si/c/finance) - **Original article:** - **On Brifing:** https://brifing.si/s/14c21f62-c1c0-4d6d-b4f0-3e667324ee9f ## Tribunal Overturns Tax Addition The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Delhi deleted a 92 lakh rupee addition imposed by tax authorities. The case involved 3.9 kg of jewellery found at the residence of Vakil Ahmed during a 2019 search. Authorities initially treated 2.3 kg of these assets as unexplained investments under Section 69A of the Act. ## Ownership Dispute and Evidence Tax officers questioned the source of the jewellery, arguing that married daughters should store ornaments at their matrimonial homes. Ahmed countered this by providing affidavits from family members and in-laws. He also submitted wedding photographs from 1974, 2001, 2004, and 2005 to establish the long-term history and legitimate ownership of the items. ## Customary Practices and Law The tribunal rejected the department's stance that keeping jewellery at a parental home is suspicious. It noted that storing ornaments at a parental residence is a common customary practice in India. The ruling emphasized that there is no legal prohibition against keeping jewellery belonging to relatives at one's primary family residence. ## Applying CBDT Seizure Guidelines The tribunal referenced CBDT Circular No. 1916, which outlines jewellery quantities that should not be seized during searches. These guidelines allow 500 grams for married women and 250 grams for unmarried women. Collectively, the taxpayer's late wife and three daughters could account for 2,000 grams of gold under these specific official parameters. ## Financial History and Context To justify the assets, the taxpayer highlighted an aggregate declared income of 5.93 crore rupees between 1995 and 2019. The tribunal considered this substantial financial history alongside the family's circumstances. It concluded that the tax department failed to account for the family's overall economic status when assessing the jewellery's source. ## Valuation and Procedural Flaws A critical factor in the ruling was the lack of independent valuation by tax authorities. The department made the 92 lakh rupee addition on an ad hoc basis without verifying the actual gold content. The taxpayer argued that gold likely comprised less than 50 percent of the total weight of the seized items. ## Clarifying Seizure vs. Ownership The tribunal clarified that CBDT guidelines serve primarily as a threshold for seizure during searches rather than a blanket exemption from explaining asset sources. Taxpayers must still be prepared to provide documentation. This case succeeded because the taxpayer provided specific evidence, including affidavits and historical records, to support his claims. ## Implications for Taxpayers This ruling underscores the necessity of maintaining clear records for family assets, even when stored at parental homes. While the tribunal ruled in favor of the taxpayer, it highlights that ownership must be established through evidence. Future compliance relies on documenting gifts and maintaining historical records to prevent arbitrary tax assessments. ## Sources covering this story - https://www.livemint.com/money/personal-finance/income-tax-can-married-daughters-keep-gold-jewellery-at-parents-home-itat-ruling-explains-tax-implications-11793639979672.html — --- _Summary written by Brifing from the original reporting. Copyright in the original article belongs to its publisher; read the full piece at the link above._