Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Held, allowing the appeal, that the sworn statement given by the assessee's brother-in-law would show that the gold ornaments were brought to the shop by the assessee's brother on the morning of the day previous to the day of search, and were received by the assessee's husband, who handed them over for preparing new ornaments, and that they were yet to be converted into new bangles. But what was seized from the premises of the assessee were newly made bangles. There was overwhelming evidence to show that the new bangles found at the time of search were not accounted for and there was no evidence for their source. Consequently, it could safely be concluded that the new bangles belonged to the assessee and the burden lay heavily on her to dislodge this presumption. Without any reliable documents, the subsequent statements of the customers could not be accepted, even if they were men of standing or men of means. No reliable document such as a J register as required under the gold control rules was kept or produced at the time of search. The Tribunal had wrongly placed the burden of proof on the Revenue. It is trite law that a person who is in possession of an article has to prove its source. The wrong application of law amounted to an error of law giving rise to a substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The orders of the Tribunal and the Commissioner (Appeals) were liable to be set aside and the order of the Assessing Officer restored.

9. It is true that in CIT v. Smt. Jayalaxmi Devrajan (supra) Kerala High Court observed that to prove an article found in possession of a person did not belong to him, the onus of proof is on that person in whose possession the available article or things are found. In this case, the sworn statement given by the assessee's brother-in-law though did show that the gold ornaments were brought to the shop by the assessee's brother on the morning of the day previous to the day of search, and were received by the assessee's husband, who handed them over for preparing new ornaments, and that they were yet to be converted into new bangles but What was seized from the premises or the assesses were newly made bangles, For that there was overwhelming evidence to show that the new bangles round at the time of search were not accounted for and there was no evidence for their source. Consequently, it was safely concluded that the new bangles belonged to the assessee and the burden lay heavily on her to dislodge this presumption. The facts in the present case are altogether different. What was found in search in this case, is the same silver for which an affidavit and confirmations were filed stating that they belong to the two sons and the circumstances under which and how that silver come in their possession were also explained. Nothing was found in converted form as was in the case before the Kerala High Court. There was overwhelming evidence in that case as observed by the Court, to show that the new bangles found at the time of search were not accounted for and there was no evidence for their source, whereas in the present case nothing of that sort is appearing. Again in the case of CIT v. Durga Prasad More (supra) it was held that, in case where the party relied on self-serving recitals and document, it was for that party to establish the truth of those recitals, the taxing authorities were entitled to look into the circumstances to find out the reality of such recitals. Whatever was possible to prove the fact that silver belonged to the two sons of the assessee was placed before the authorities and department did not find anything to the contrary except the suspicion.