9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that the assessee had not been able to rebut the statutory presumption under section 132(4A) of the Act and, therefore, the addition made under section 69A were justified X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their statement was made available to the assessee but despite this, he made no efforts to substantiate his explanation in any manner whatsoever. The Tribunal has noted that the books of account of the Congress (I) party were also verified but these also did not show any connection with the cash recovered from the assessee. On these broad facts, it was held that the assessee had not been able to rebut the statutory presumption under section 132(4A) of the Act and, therefore, the addition was made under section 69A of the Act. In this appeal before us, it is not possible to reappreciate the evidence, particularly when the assessee has not been able to show any perversity in the order passed by the Tribunal. The issue having been decided p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he person from whose possession it was found as its owner." In CIT v. K.T.M.S. Mohamood [1997] 228 ITR 113 (Mad), some currency was recovered from the premises of the assessee. On the question of onus regarding ownership, the Madras High Court held as follows: "In order to make the assessment under section 69A of the Act for undisclosed income, the assessee must not only be a person, who is in possession of the undisclosed income, but he should also be the owner of the same. The assessee himself has admitted that he is in possession of Rs. 4,28,713. The point for consideration is whether the Department has established that the assessee is also the owner of Rs. 4,28,713. In a matter like this, under the provisions of section 110 of the Evi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , as such, that income was subject to tax. In this view, the High Court was justified in justifying the Tribunal's holding that the assessee was the owner of the wrist-watches and thus including the value in the assessment of the assessee as his income and so deemed to be the income of the assessee by virtue of section 69A of the Act coupled with surrounding circumstances. Therefore, inclusion of the money in purchasing the wrist-watches, that is to say, Rs. 87,455 was correct and proper for the assessment year under reference."
Under the circumstances of the case, we find no merit in the contentions put forward by learned counsel for the appellant. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeal is dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
