1989 (1) TMI 42

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... GOKAL CHAND MITAL J. -On a mandamus issued by this court, the following questions have been referred for our opinion : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the onus of proving ownership of the gold lay on the Department ?  (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the owner of the gold, although it was accepted by the Tribunal that the recovery was made from the possession of Bimal Parkash. The relevant observations of the Tribunal are as follows: "So far as we know, the factum of recovery of any article from the person of an individual may warrant a presumption that that individual had the exclusive possession of that article. We are, however, aware of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rawn that he was the owner of the recovered gold and had income which he had invested in purchasing the same. However, it was upon the assessee to rebut the same but he failed to rebut in this case. The Tribunal erred in placing the onus on the Department to prove that it was the income of the assessee. A similar question arose before the Supreme Court in Chuharmal v. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 250, and w....