Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 1967 (8) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1967 (8) TMI 132 - HC - Income Tax

Issues:
Assessment of income based on confiscated gold - Burden of proof on the assessee - Application of Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the assessment of income for the year 1957-58. The case revolves around an incident at the Olavakode Railway Station where the assessee was found with 260 tolas of gold, leading to the assessment of Rs. 18,000 as the assessee's income. The assessee claimed the gold belonged to another individual, which was not accepted due to lack of evidence. The High Court dismissed the assessee's petition against the gold confiscation, emphasizing the lack of ownership claim. The burden of proof regarding the source of the gold and its price rested on the assessee, which was not satisfactorily discharged.

The judgment refers to legal precedents emphasizing the onus on the assessee to prove the source of unexplained income or investments. The Supreme Court rulings in Govindarajulu Mudaliar v Commissioner of Income-tax and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v Commissioner of Income-tax highlight the requirement for the assessee to demonstrate the source of funds or face the presumption of concealed income. Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, deals with investments not recorded in the books of account, placing the responsibility on the assessee to provide a satisfactory explanation regarding the nature and source of such investments.

In the present case, the court found that the assessee failed to prove the source of the amount spent on acquiring the gold, as his explanations were not credible. Consequently, the Income-Tax Officer was justified in treating the value of the gold as income from undisclosed sources. The judgment concludes by ruling in favor of the Department, holding that the burden of proof was not met by the assessee. The court directed the answer to the question against the assessee without any order as to costs, in compliance with the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates