https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17464 Money found in a person's possession is presumed to belong to him, and for section 69A purposes the burden rests on that person to prove that he is not the owner. The Madras HC applied this presumption, relying on section 110 of the Evidence Act and Chuharmal v. CIT, and held that the assessee's bare admission of possession without cogent proof that the cash belonged to others was insufficient. The addition was therefore sustainable only to the extent of the amount actually found in his possession, and the larger proposed sum was not brought to tax on this issue. en-us Thu, 08 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Jul 2017 14:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17464 Money found in a person's possession is presumed to belong to him, and for section 69A purposes the burden rests on that person to prove that he is not the owner. The Madras HC applied this presumption, relying on section 110 of the Evidence Act and Chuharmal v. CIT, and held that the assessee's bare admission of possession without cogent proof that the cash belonged to others was insufficient. The addition was therefore sustainable only to the extent of the amount actually found in his possession, and the larger proposed sum was not brought to tax on this issue. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 08 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17464