Burden on revenue to prove nexus before treating funds in another's name as assessee's own money.

A finding that money standing in another person's name does not belong to that person does not, by itself, prove that it belongs to the assessee-firm. Where the revenue alleges that apparent ownership is not real, it must independently establish a nexus between the funds and the assessee, even if it relies on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances cited, including overdraft security, later use of the funds, and common control through a family member, were held insufficient to support ownership in the firm. The conclusion that the sum belonged to the assessee-firm was therefore not supported by material on record and was answered against the revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether there was material on record to support the finding that the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs belonged to the assessee-firm.

Analysis: The finding that the money did not belong to Shivkaran did not by itself establish that it belonged to the assessee-firm. In a case where the revenue alleges that apparent ownership is not real, the burden lies on the revenue to prove a nexus between the funds and the assessee. Circumstantial evidence may be relied upon, but it must reasonably support the conclusion reached. The circumstances relating to the overdraft security and the later use of the funds were held insufficient, and the Tribunal's reliance on common control through a family member was also found not to furnish relevant material establishing ownership in the firm.

Conclusion: The finding that the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs belonged to the assessee-firm was not supported by material on record and was answered against the revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: A finding that money standing in another's name does not belong to that person does not, without a proved nexus or adequate material, justify a conclusion that it belongs to the assessee; the revenue must independently establish the assessee's ownership, even by circumstantial evidence.

---