2006 (6) TMI 77

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ourse of search. It appears that the residential premises of the assessee in New Delhi and Mandi (Himachal Pradesh) were searched and during that search a large amount of cash was recovered. Initially, the assessee denied possession of the cash but later on he admitted his possession in a statement recorded on oath. The statement was not retracted and, therefore, the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the cash amount was under the control and in the possession of the assessee. Under section 132(4A) of the Act, the Revenue was entitled to draw a presumption against the assessee in respect of the cash found but since the presumption is rebuttable, an opportunity was given to the assessee to rebut the statutory presumption. Seeking ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as not been able to show any perversity in the order passed by the Tribunal. The issue having been decided purely on the facts, we are of the view that no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. In Ashok Kumar v. CIT [1986] 160 ITR 497 (MP), the question that arose for decision was whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing to accept the assessee's explanation given in respect of cash amounting to Rs. 16,000. The Madhya Pradesh High Court was of the view that the question whether the assessee's explanation was acceptable or not was purely one of fact since it did not involve the application of any principle of law. Even otherwise, on the merits of the case, the court held that possession is evidence of ownership ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the assessee is also the owner of Rs. 4,28,713. In a matter like this, under the provisions of section 110 of the Evidence Act, the onus is on the person, who is in possession of the money to show that he is not the owner of the same. Therefore, the burden is not on the Department to prove that the assessee is the owner of the amount found in the possession of the assessee." It was reiterated a little later in the judgment that in a matter like this, when an assessee is found in possession of currency, it is for him to prove that he is not the owner of the currency and it is not for the Revenue to prove that the assessee is the owner of the currency found in his possession. In Chuharmal v. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 250 (SC), some wrist watc....