TMI Blog1964 (1) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amily. Subsequently, on June 11, 1948, both Swaminathan and Nachiappa reunited; the former did not survive the re-union very long. But the re-union has no relevance to the present case, which is concerned with the assessment of the family of Nachiappa prior to such re-union. Nachiappa owned certain properties in this country; he had also an interest in some business conducted in Malaya and Burma. On account of the conditions brought about by the Second World War there was no assessment of his family till July 2, 1948, when an assessment of his income was made for the year 1947-48. Besides the properties referred to above, the assessee had an interest in partnership business at Singampunari and Dindigul, in which Nachiappa was a partner. It was later found that the income received by the assessee from the partnership business at DindigulSingampunari had escaped assessment during the year of assessment. Proceedings under section 34 were then commenced and that income was brought to tax. Further enquiry by the Income-tax Officer revealed that on February 5, 1947, a deposit had been made in the Indian Overseas Bank at its Pudukottai branch, of a sum of ₹ 52,500 in the name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal. On the Tribunal refusing to state a case under section 66(1), the assessee applied to this court for directing the Tribunal to state a case under section 66(2). At that time a complaint was made on behalf of the assessee that the account books, which would prove the gift by Swaminathan to Meenakshi Achi and which had been actually filed before the Tribunal before the hearing of the appeal, had not been considered by it. This court directed the Tribunal that, in submitting a statement of the case, it should record a finding with reference to the materials placed before it. The Tribunal has accordingly submitted a statement of the case showing that the account books of Swaminathan, as well as the explanatory statement filed by the assessee's counsel, do not support the case as to gift by Swaminathan to Meenakshi Achi. Mr. Kesava Ayyangar, appearing for the assessee, does not now challenge the correctness of the finding reached by the department as well as the Tribunal that Swaminathan could not have provided and did not actually provide the money for the deposit standing in the name of Meenakshi Achi. But learned counsel has argued that, inasmuch as the bank account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss to which we have made reference earlier. The assessee was, therefore, not a person who was above adopting devices to evade the tax. Secondly, the only point at issue before the authorities was whether the father-in-law or the husband of Meenakshi Achi provided her with funds. There was no suggestion of a possibility of Meenakshi Achi obtaining the money from any other source. It is clear from the record that the assessee has proceeded on the footing that if the case of gift by Swaminathan is to be negatived, the money must be held to have been contributed by him. It will follow that the result of the finding reached by the Appellate Tribunal (which is now accepted by the learned counsel appearing for the assessee), that there was no gift of the sum of ₹ 52,500 to Meenakshi Achi by her father-in-law, means that the money must have been given to her by her own husband. In Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1958] 34 I.T.R. 807 (S.C.) certain credits found in the accounts of the assessee were not satisfactorily explained by him. It was held that it was open to the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Tribunal to hold that they represented the concealed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no doubt be open to a party, who wants to plead that the apparent title is not the real one to prove that fact: where that has not been done, the apparent title will be the real one. But the case before us does not rest on mere presumptions. Statements were made which required an investigation by the department and the Tribunal and which showed that, but for her husband's wealth, the lady had no means. If the story of the gift by the father-in-law fails, the department had no other alternative except to proceed upon the footing that the money must have been the husband's. Mr. Kesava Ayyangar, however, placed considerable reliance on the observations of the Privy Council in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bombay Trust Corporation Ltd. [1936] 4 I.T.R. 323 (P.C.) There, an Indian company, which was borrowing moneys from a foreign company had paid interest therefor: it also happened to be the agent of the foreign company and in that capacity it was assessed to tax as such agent. During the relevant period all the moneys due to the foreign company by the Indian company were purported to be paid to a common banker at Shanghai. There were entries in the account books of the ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
