https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191353 The court upheld the addition of Rs. 16,100 representing the value of jewellery found during a search in the hands of the assessee-HUF. The burden of proof regarding ownership of the seized ornaments lay on the applicant, who failed to establish ownership. The court emphasized existing evidentiary principles and ruled in favor of the Revenue, affirming the Tribunal's decision based on the presumption that goods found in one's possession belong to them unless proven otherwise. en-us Thu, 06 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 31 Mar 2017 11:44:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191353 The court upheld the addition of Rs. 16,100 representing the value of jewellery found during a search in the hands of the assessee-HUF. The burden of proof regarding ownership of the seized ornaments lay on the applicant, who failed to establish ownership. The court emphasized existing evidentiary principles and ruled in favor of the Revenue, affirming the Tribunal's decision based on the presumption that goods found in one's possession belong to them unless proven otherwise. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 06 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191353