Unexplained seized currency: possession alone does not prove ownership, so the revenue must establish a factual basis for addition.

Jurisdictional objections to the Income-tax Officer failed because they were not supported by specific facts or raised as a proper challenge before the Assessing Officer, and the place of assessment was treated as an administrative matter not open to general appellate attack. On the seized currency, the Tribunal held that mere possession did not prove ownership for an addition as unexplained income; the revenue had to establish that the assessee owned the cash or otherwise invested it, and it produced no such material. The resident status ground also failed because the record did not displace the status adopted below.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the assessee could successfully challenge the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer in appeal; (ii) whether the value of the seized currency could be added as the assessee's income when ownership was not proved; (iii) whether the assessee's status as resident was incorrectly determined.

Issue (i): whether the assessee could successfully challenge the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer in appeal

Analysis: The objection to territorial or administrative jurisdiction was not supported by any specific factual basis showing that the assessee fell within the special notification regime. The challenge was also not raised as a specific jurisdictional objection before the Assessing Officer. The place of assessment was treated as a matter of administrative convenience and not a matter open to general appellate challenge after assessment.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection failed and was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the value of the seized currency could be added as the assessee's income when ownership was not proved

Analysis: The addition was examined under the provision dealing with money or valuable articles treated as unexplained income. Mere possession did not conclusively establish ownership. The revenue relied on the evidentiary presumption regarding possession, but the Tribunal held that the burden remained on the revenue to show that the assessee was in fact the owner. On the material on record, the assessee was an illiterate housewife with no independent source of income, and the surrounding circumstances supported the inference that she was only a carrier of the currency. The revenue led no material to prove ownership or investment by the assessee.

Conclusion: The addition of the currency value was not justified and was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether the assessee's status as resident was incorrectly determined

Analysis: The record did not support the claim that the assessee was a non-resident. No material was shown to displace the status adopted by the lower authority.

Conclusion: The status as resident was correctly determined and this ground was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessment addition was deleted because the revenue failed to prove that the assessee owned the seized currency, and the appeal succeeded on the substantive tax issue.

Ratio Decidendi: For an addition of seized currency or valuable articles as unexplained income, mere possession is insufficient; the revenue must establish ownership or another factual basis for treating the asset as the assessee's income.

---