Unexplained investment in gold treated as taxable income when the assessee failed to prove the source of funds.

An assessee found in possession of gold failed to satisfactorily explain its ownership and the source of the funds used to acquire it. Because the source of the investment lay within his special knowledge and his explanation was rejected on facts, the Court held that the unexplained value could be treated as income from undisclosed sources. The reasoning aligned with the principle reflected in section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, under which unexplained investments may be deemed taxable income. The question was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Department.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the facts and circumstances, the value of gold found with the assessee could be treated as his income from undisclosed sources and the burden of proving the source of the funds used to acquire it lay on him.

Analysis: The assessee was found in possession of 260 tolas of gold, and his explanation that it belonged to another person and that he had borrowed money for an advance was rejected on facts. The source of the money expended for obtaining the gold was within the assessee's special knowledge, and he failed to discharge that burden. The reasoning was consistent with the principle that where an assessee cannot satisfactorily explain the source and nature of an asset or receipt, the revenue may draw an inference that it represents taxable income. Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was referred to as reflecting the same rule, namely that unexplained investments may be deemed income.

Conclusion: The value of the gold was rightly treated as income from undisclosed sources, and the question referred was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Department.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the source of funds used to acquire an asset found in his possession, the unexplained value may be treated as taxable income from undisclosed sources.

---