Transfer of residence benefit accepted for a VCR where visual inspection was too vague to disprove one-year use.

Transfer of residence benefit was allowed for a VCR treated as an old and used article where departmental inspection was found too vague to establish that it was new or unused for the requisite period. Mere visual examination was held insufficient to reliably determine duration of use, and the applicant's invoice showing purchase on 20-7-1988 supported possession for over one year. On that basis, the benefit of doubt was given to the applicant and the VCR was accepted as qualifying for transfer of residence treatment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the VCR was entitled to transfer of residence benefit as an old and used article, and whether the evidence showed possession and use for over one year.

Analysis: The inspection reports of the departmental authorities only stated that the VCR appeared new and did not show signs of use for over one year, but the assessment was found to be vague because mere visual inspection could not reliably determine the duration of use. The applicant produced an invoice showing purchase of the VCR on 20-7-1988 and asserted possession for the requisite period. In these circumstances, the benefit of doubt was extended to the applicant.

Conclusion: The VCR was accepted as old and used, and the transfer of residence benefit was allowed.

---