TMI Blog1984 (6) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as she had no money to invest in the firm and that she was a benamidar of her husband, Ratan Kumar, who was partner in another firm doing similar business. On appeal, the ld. AAC confirmed the findings of the ITO and dismissed the assessee's appeal. Feeling aggrieved the assessee has come to this Tribunal. 2. We have heard the ld. counsel for the assessee and the ld. Departmental Representative. Smt. Suman Agrawal is the daughter-in-law of Bishambernath Agarwal, who is also a partner in the firm. She purports to have made an investment of Rs. 10,000 in the firm which she alleged to have borrowed from one Smt. Manorama Sharma. The ITO sent an Inspector to Smt. Manorama, who, on enquiry by the Inspector, denied to have known Smt. Suman as w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f loan by Smt. Manorama Sharma. 3. It was then argued that even if the advancement of money by Smt. Manorama Sharma was not proved, then there was no material whatsoever that the money came from the husband of Smt. Suman. The only circumstance relied upon by the ITO was that Ratankumar, the husband of Smt. Suman was also a partner in another firm, Ratankumar Co. doing similar business. This circumstance by itself was no sufficient to hold that Smt. Suman was the benamidar of her husband. This could have been held only if the ITO had closely examined the affairs of the two firms and found either that the money actually came from the husband or there was close interconnection between the business of the two firms. No such material has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er husband. If the money was in fact invested the circumstance that Smt. Manorama denied having lent the money to Smt. Suman became unimportant. As far as the real source of the money is concerned, it remains a matter of suspicion only that it might have come from the assessee's husband. There is not rule of law debarring a wife from starting a business by obtaining funds from her husband. At the most the income from such money could be taxed in the hands of the husband under s. 64. That would, however, not make the wife a benamidar of the husband. There is no material whatsoever to show that Ratankumar was actually managing the affairs of the firm. We are, therefore of the opinion that there was no sufficient material to find that the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
