COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. JAYALAKSHMI DEVARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Trivandrum, aggrieved by the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 79/Coch./96 dated April 28, 2000. Though four questions have been framed in the appeal, the Revenue is primarily aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in wrongly placing the burden of proof on the Revenue.

(2.) The assessee is an individual and carries on business as the proprietrix of M/s. Padmaja Jewellers. A search was conducted in the business premises of the assessee on January 23, 1992. During the search operations it was found that the assessee was in possession of unaccounted stock of gold weighing 502.330 gms in the form of 77 numbers of new gold bangles. At the time of search on January 23, 1992 one Govindraj, the brother of the assessee's husband was present in the assessee's jewellery shop. A statement was recorded from him. He stated that he was engaged in the work of making gold ornaments, particularly bangles and that G. Section 12 register was kept for such work and that his brother Devarajan, the assessee's husband, was writing the said register. Further it was also stated that gold weighing 450 gms. were given for preparing ornaments by one Raju, brother of the assessee, on the morning of January 22, 1992, a day previous to the date of search. Govindarajan also stated that gold was accepted by his elder brother Devarajan who was at the shop when the gold was given to him for making the ornaments. Govindrajan had also stated that gold given by Raju on the previous day was yet to be converted into new bangles. From the above facts the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that if at all Raju had given to Govindarajan any gold ornaments, they were not converted into new gold ornaments, and therefore the new gold ornaments of 77 bangles found at the time of search at the shop was not accounted for and the source for the acquisition of the gold was not known or explained.

(3.) The assessee, however, at the time of hearing filed a written statement before the Assistant Director of Investigation stating that the gold ornaments seized belonged to five customers who had given gold ornaments for remaking them into new bangles. A letter to that effect was also sent to the investigating officer. Following are the names and quantity of gold ornaments alleged to have been given by five customers.