1973 (3) TMI 33

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arch 7, 1958. On 24th February, 1959, the assessee and his brother went to Karur on business. At that time, the Central Excise authorities siezed from them diamonds, jewellery and other precious stones amounting to 36 carats and 90 cents, the value of which came to Rs. 26,800. Before the Central Excise authorities the assessee contended that diamonds weighing 5.57 carats represented a consignment received from H. B. Shah, that jewellery weighing 7.38 carats represented the consignment received from one Alagappa Chettiar, and that diamonds weighing 19.50 carats had been inherited from his father. The Central Excise authorities accepted the plea of the assessee and returned the goods seized to the assessee on January 7, 1961. The assessee had....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nalty. The Income-tax Officer held that it was a clear case of concealment. In that view, he levied a penalty of Rs. 2,500. Against the order levying penalty, there was an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Even there, it was contended that the house property as well as the diamonds in question belonged to the joint family of himself and his two brothers, that they had not been acquired by him exclusively out of his own funds and that, therefore, the levy of penalty on the basis that there was deliberate concealment could not be sustained. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner a partition deed executed between the assessee and his two brothers on 27th November, 1960, was produced in support of the assessee's case that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to the joint family or not as contended by the assessee, straightaway proceeded to say that " it has been proved almost to a certainty that the assessee's father could not have left any diamonds ". What are the materials on which the Tribunal took it as certain that the assessee's father could not have acquired the diamonds is not clear. The assessee's statement that the diamonds were old-cut ones has not been disputed by the revenue. That the assessee and his two brothers constituted a Hindu joint family has also not been questioned. Once the assessee is treated as a member of the Hindu joint family, then the onus is on the revenue to show that the acquisition of the house property as well as the diamonds was from his exclusive funds, espe....