Law:

Section:

Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained moneys - Assessment year 1968-69 - Assessee was a proprietor of a firm - Whether onus of proving ownership of gold recovered from possession of assessee, while he was on his way to his place of business, was on him and if he failed to discharge the said onus, value of aforesaid gold was to be treated as income of assessee - Held, yes FACTS The assessee was a proprietor of a firm. On 14-4-1967 certain gold was recovered from the possession of the assessee near bus stand while he was on his way to his place of business. The ITO treated the gold as belonging to the assessee and deemed the value thereof to be the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1968-69. On second appeal, the Tribunal held that the revenue failed to discharge the onus of proving that the assessee was the owner of the gold although the recovery was made from the possession of the assessee. On reference: HELD Section 110 of the Evidence Act, 1872, embodies a salutary principle of common law jurisprudence to the effect that if a person is found in possession of something, he is deemed to be its owner by virtue of possessory title and the onus would be on him if he wants to disclaim the ownership. Therefore, in the instant case since the assessee was found in possession of the gold while travelling to his place of business, under section 110 inference had to be drawn that he was owner of the recovered gold and had income which he had invested in purchasing the same. However, it was upon to the assessee to rebut the same but he failed to rebut the same. The Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in Holding that the onus was on the revenue to prove that it was the income of the assessee. CASE REVIEW Chuharmal v. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 250 (SC) followed & relied upon. CASES REFERRED TO Chuharmal v. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 250 (SC). Ashok Bhan and Ajay Mittal for the Applicant. JUDGMENT Mital, J.-On a mandamus issued by this Court, the following questions have been referred, for opinion: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the onus of proving ownership of the gold lay on…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492