Burden of proof on source of property funds shifts when sale proceeds stand in assessee's own name.

Where an assessee claimed that funds used to buy property in his wife's name came from the sale of her jewellery, the Tribunal was entitled to reject that explanation when the supporting material was inconsistent and unsupported by surrounding circumstances. A finding of fact will stand unless it is unsupported by evidence or is perverse. On the question of burden, once the consideration was traced to sale proceeds standing in the assessee's own name, the onus shifted to the wife to prove with satisfactory evidence that the property genuinely belonged to her. On the material recorded, the purchase money could properly be treated as assessable receipts from an undisclosed source.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's finding that the consideration for the purchase of the house was traceable to undisclosed sources, and not to the wife's alleged sale of jewellery, could be sustained on the material on record, and whether any error of law was shown in the Tribunal's approach to burden of proof and onus.

Analysis: The reference arose from an assessment year in which the assessee claimed that the purchase money for property standing in his wife's name came from sale proceeds of her jewellery. The evidence relied upon by the assessee was found unsatisfactory because the alleged extent of jewellery was inconsistent, the sale patties related to bullion and stood in the assessee's own name, and the surrounding circumstances did not support the wife's version. The governing principle is that a Tribunal's finding of fact is binding unless there is no evidence to support it or the finding is perverse. On the question of onus, once the source of consideration was traced to the assessee through the sale proceeds standing in his name, the burden shifted to the wife to establish by satisfactory evidence that the property genuinely belonged to her. The material on record was sufficient for the inference that the consideration represented assessable receipts from an undisclosed source.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's finding was upheld, and no error of law or perversity was shown. The reference was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

---