Unexplained jewellery in search requires credible evidence to rebut presumption; self-serving registers alone are insufficient.

In search cases involving unexplained jewellery, the assessee must rebut the statutory presumption with credible, complete evidence showing that excess ornaments belong to customers and not to the business. Self-maintained registers were treated as insufficient where they lacked full customer particulars, supporting addresses, and consistent voucher entries, and where the claimed retention period was commercially improbable. The discussion also notes that appellate relief should not rest merely on the absence of departmental enquiry when co-terminus powers require proper verification. Relief was considered supportable only for separately identified repair items kept in identifiable packets, while the broader claim concerning customers' gold required fresh examination.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee had discharged the burden of proving that the excess gold ornaments found during search belonged to customers and not to the assessee so as to avoid addition under section 69A; (ii) Whether the relief granted by the first appellate authority in respect of the customers' gold and the treatment of the separately inventoried repair items was justified.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee had discharged the burden of proving that the excess gold ornaments found during search belonged to customers and not to the assessee so as to avoid addition under section 69A.

Analysis: The statutory presumption arising from search materials and possession of jewellery was considered rebuttable, but the assessee was required to discharge the primary onus by producing reliable and complete evidence. Mere entries in self-maintained registers were held insufficient where the registers did not contain complete customer particulars, the assessee could not furnish addresses, some vouchers indicated return of ornaments without corresponding register entries, and the claimed retention of valuable gold for unusually long periods was found inconsistent with ordinary commercial probability. The surrounding circumstances, tested on the touchstone of human probabilities, did not support the claim that the entire excess stock belonged to customers.

Conclusion: The assessee did not discharge the burden of proof, and the addition could not be deleted merely on the basis of the entries in the registers.

Issue (ii): Whether the relief granted by the first appellate authority in respect of the customers' gold and the treatment of the separately inventoried repair items was justified.

Analysis: The first appellate authority had granted relief primarily on the ground that the Department had not undertaken further enquiry, but the appellate authority itself possessed co-terminus powers and could not rest relief on that omission without proper verification. The matter therefore required reconsideration by the assessing authority after giving the assessee an effective opportunity to produce supporting material. At the same time, the separately inventoried 54 items weighing 401.300 grams were specifically found in identifiable packets and were not seized, which supported the assessee's claim only for that limited category.

Conclusion: The major relief was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh verification, while the addition relating to the 54 identified repair items was directed to be deleted.

Final Conclusion: The dispute was resolved only partly in favour of the Revenue, with the principal claim regarding customers' gold sent back for fresh examination and only the separately identified repair items given relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: In cases of unexplained jewellery found in search, the assessee must rebut the statutory presumption with credible and complete evidence; self-serving records without full customer identification do not suffice, and appellate relief cannot be granted without proper inquiry when the authority has co-terminus powers.

---