Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

32. Here, initially, the assessee changed version three times about the s of `5,00,000/-: that the amount was remitted from abroad; that his NRE friends lent the money; that he s the bars of gold. The AO examined five witnesses; none inspired confidence or s even 9 10th Ed., Lexis Nexis, N. Delhi, p.1360 (Vol.I) remotely truthful. True that the assessee provided the particulars of the other alleged purchasers, too. Equally true is the fact that the principle of falsus uno, falsus omnibus does not apply to the testimonies in the courts of India. In other words, those unsummoned witnesses might have thrown more light on the issue, and the falsity of the witnesses already examined could have posed no hurdle. But, at the same time, we cannot discount the diligent efforts by the AO to get at the truth.

33. To put it simply, we may observe that by changing his versions frequently and by producing witnesses who inspired no confidence, the assessee did not discharge his primary burden. Absent that discharge, we cannot insist that the AO could have probed further and further. Suffice it to say that the s for `5,00,000/-, one of the two deposits, remained unexplained--even prima facie. So, we see no justification for the Tribunal to upset the AO's well-rea findings, which later stood affirmed by the Appellate Authority. We therefore reverse the Tribunal's finding on the s of income for the assessee to deposit `5,00,000/- in his wife's savings bank account.