TMI Blog1998 (2) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the gold bars were with the assessee in the year 1972? 4. Whether the finding entered by the Tribunal to reach the conclusion that s. 69A of the Act was not attracted to the case are supported by any material or evidence on record?" 2. The brief facts as culled out from the order of the Tribunal are that for the asst. yr. 1981-82 with which we are concerned, the assessee, a proprietor of M/s A.C. Stores, Ernakulam, filed a return of income disclosing total income of Rs. 3,31,900 which was reduced in a revised return to Rs. 3,31,250. The ITO also completed the assessment on a total income of Rs. 43,83,991, which included a sum of Rs. 40,37,351, which was taken to be the income of the assessee under s. 69A of the Act, being the value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g counsel during the argument. In the statement recorded by the ITO the assessee simply denied having owned and possessed the articles in question. No statement was given by the assessee before the ITO that the articles were acquired in the year 1972. Except the denial of ownership and possession and except the denial of knowledge of the articles, no other statement was made by the assessee before the ITO. 6. The AO invoked the provisions of s. 69A of the Act and relying on materials available on record concluded that the aforesaid articles belonged to the assessee and that they represented the concealed income of the assessee for the year in question. This is how he made an addition of Rs. 40,37,351, under s. 69A of the Act. 7. On ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfiscation of foreign watches from the house of the petitioner. Accordingly, the ITO issued a notice calling upon the assessee to show cause why the value of the watches seized from his residence should not be treated as his income from undisclosed sources. Then almost the similar argument, which has been made before us by counsel for the assessee, was made before the Supreme Court for the assessee. Rejecting the submission of the petitioner, the Supreme Court held as follows: "......Sec. 110 of the Evidence Act is material in this respect and the High Court relied on the same which stipulates that when the question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession, the onus of proving that he is not the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt. The articles having been recovered from the possession of the assessee, the onus was on the assessee to prove that the articles in question belonged to someone else and not to him. No such evidence was adduced by the assessee and, therefore, the normal presumption would be that the assessee himself was the owner of the gold articles, recovered from his compound. 13. Another submission of counsel for the assessee is that the assessing authority extensively relied on the statement recorded by the customs authorities in which the assessee clearly stated that the acquisition of the gold articles related to the year 1972. He submits that the statement recorded by the customs authorities and relied on by the assessing authority should ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
