TMI Blog1988 (11) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat he had taken a loan from the Government of Rs. 17,000 while Rs. 13,200 had been advanced to him by his sons during the period April 1, 1968, to March 31, 1970. The Income-tax Officer, while making the assessment for the assessment year 1971-72, did not doubt the investment of Rs. 17,000 in the construction of the house which the assessee had obtained as loan from the Government, but he did not accept the contribution of Rs. 13,200 said to have been made by the assessee's sons. This sum was consequently treated as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources for the assessment year 1971-72. On appeal, the assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 13,200 on the plea that the investment in the house had been made during the, Assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer and the investment as disclosed by the assessee. In addition, he also found that the sum of Rs. 13,200 had not been contributed by the two sons of the assessee. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that considering that some amenities are provided in the house after its completion and the fact that distempering, etc., may not have taken place, as per the plea of the assessee, a benefit of Rs. 10,000 was allowed and the cost of construction up to the year in question was thus taken to be Rs. 52,000. As regards the item of Rs. 13,200 said to have been received by the assessee from his sons, he confirmed the addition of Rs. 10,000. In other words, he gave relief to the assessee to the extent of Rs. 3,200 on this accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was, accordingly, held that wholly irrelevant evidence had been considered by the Income-tax Officer for ascertaining the investment made by the assessee during the assessment year 1970-71. As regards the sum of Rs. 5,000 deposited with Hamdard Printing Press, Jalandhar, in the name of the assessee's wife, the Tribunal held that the Income-tax Officer was not justified in calling upon the assessee to explain this deposit. It was held in this behalf that either the person in whose books the deposit appears or the person in whose name the deposit stands should have been called upon to explain the deposit. This amount of Rs. 5,000 could not, therefore, be added to the assessee's income and its deletion was, accordingly, ordered. It was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
