9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (10) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d showed that the sale deed for this property bearing the date, February 5, 1966, stood in the name of the assessee's son for Rs. 23,000. According to the assessee, the wherewithal for the purchase of this property was found by his son in the following manner; two lump sums of Rs. 5,000 each were given as gift by the assessee to his son. With this amount, the son was carrying on business of film-financing and in period of three years, he was able to make up an addition of Rs. 13,000 to the amounts gifted. The aggregate funds, according to the assessee, went in for the purchase by the son of this property. The ITO considered this claim of the assessee in the light of the evidence furnished by him in the course of the assessment proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e mortgage, it was said, was subsequently redeemed in 1969. Following this information, Papurajan was summoned to appear and give evidence on oath. According to the evidence of this individual, even while Mathew was redeeming the mortgage, he had made a representation to the effect that it was his father who had provided him with the money for redeeming the mortgage. It was not suggested either by the, assessee or by Mathew that the latter had any money of his own, apart from the alleged gifts by the assessee. Nor was it claimed that anyone else had helped Mathew with funds for the purchase of the property, Having considered all these circumstances, the ITO recorded a finding that it was the assessee who was the real owner of the house prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d out who the real owner of the property is so as to fix the liability for income-tax on that owner in respect of that property. This jurisdiction of the ITO to probe into real and benami acquisitions of property cannot be gainsaid, considering that the very basis of the charge to tax under the Act is the ownership of the property. In this case, as we have shown above, the Tribunal had before them considerable materials on record, on the basis of which they arrived at their conclusion that the property bearing door No. 91, Bussy Street, Pondicherry, is property of which the real owner is the assessee and not his son. This finding can only be assailed if it could be urged by the assessee that there is no material whatever in support of tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
