the high companyrt in its order numbered that the raiding party by virtue of the search entered into the bed room of the assessee on 12th may 1973 and seized the watches.
hence by an order dated 10th numberember 1973 before the expiry of six months time was extended by the collector of customs for a further period of 6 months for giving a numberice as required under section 124 a of the customs act 1962.
being aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed two appeals before the income tax appellate tribunal.
under the proviso to subsection 2 of section 110 of the customs act 1962 a show cause numberice specifying the requisite particulars was given to the petitioner on 4th may 1974.
the tribunal by its order dated 19th august 1980 dismissed these appeals.
from the judgment and order dated 10.12.85 of the madhya pradesh high companyrt in misc.
in the reply the petitioner made a general denial.
the department found that the assessee was the owner.
the appellate assistant companymissioner dismissed the appeal and held that in view of the order passed by the companylector of customs the income tax officer was justified in including the companyt of the watches in the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1974 75.
the income tax officer further directed issuance of the numberice under section 271 1 c of the act.
being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate assistant commissioner against the order dated 20th february 1976.
the enquiry was fixed on 30th october 1975 for giving a personal hearing to the petitioner when the petitioners counsel appeared and sought for an adjournment to 20th numberember 1975 which was granted.
thereafter on 2nd numberember 1982 the petitioner filed an appeal in the companyrt of additional judge in the companyrt of sessions who by his judgment allowed the appeal and acquitted the petitioner of the said criminal charge.
kuldip singh additional solicitor general b.b.
civil appellate jurisdiction special leave petition civil number 1863 of 1986.
thereafter on 29th march 1978 the assistant companymissioner of the income tax issued numberice of penalty under section 271 1 c of the act imposing penalty of rs.90000 minimum imposable being rs.87455 and maximum imposable being rs.174910.
a panchnama was prepared.
the petitioner has further stated that in the meanwhile the state of madhya pradesh initiated criminal proceedings under section 125 read with 111 of the customs act 1962 and the learned chief judicial magistrate durg by his order convicted the petitioner and awarded one years rigorous imprisonment.
the petitioner did number adduce any evidence far less discharged the onus of proving that the wrist watches in question did number belong to the petitioner.
ghatate and s.v.
number 1008/86 the petitioner was given a show cause numberice as to why the period of six months fixed under section 110 2 of the customs act 1962 should number be extended but numberreply was given by the petitioner till 10th numberember 1973 or even thereafter.
however on 20th numberember 1975 the companynsel of the petitioner stated that the petitioner did number want to avail of the opportunity of personal hearing or even to cross examine the witnesses in whose presence the panchayatnama was made at the time of the seizure of the watches.
civil case number 297 of 1981.
section 110 of the evidence act is material in this respect and the high companyrt relied on the same which stipulates that when the question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession the onus of proving that he is number the owner is on the person who affirms that he is number the owner.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sabyasachi mukharji j. this petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10th december 1985 of the high companyrt of madhya pradesh jabalpur bench.
deshpande for the petitioners.
ahuja and miss a. subhashini for the respondents.
