https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347290 Possession of jewellery without a satisfactory explanation of ownership or source justified treatment of its value as unexplained income under section 69A. The Kerala HC applied the principle that possession raises an evidentiary burden on the assessee, consistent with section 110 of the Evidence Act, to show that the gold ornaments belonged to the employer and not to him. On the facts, the assessing authority and Tribunal found material inconsistencies in the employer's version and the surrounding records, and those concurrent findings were not shown to be perverse. The addition was therefore upheld. en-us Wed, 23 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Nov 2017 14:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347290 Possession of jewellery without a satisfactory explanation of ownership or source justified treatment of its value as unexplained income under section 69A. The Kerala HC applied the principle that possession raises an evidentiary burden on the assessee, consistent with section 110 of the Evidence Act, to show that the gold ornaments belonged to the employer and not to him. On the facts, the assessing authority and Tribunal found material inconsistencies in the employer's version and the surrounding records, and those concurrent findings were not shown to be perverse. The addition was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 23 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347290