https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63633 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. en-us Fri, 26 Jun 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Feb 2011 11:37:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63633 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. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 26 Jun 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63633