9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (9) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justified? (6) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition to the income returned to the extent of Rs. 3,000 was justified on the materials? (7) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 2,713 to the income returned is justified ? (8) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 4,060 to the income returned by the assessee is justified ? (9) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 2,644 to the income returned by the assessee is justified ? (10) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case'. the addition of Rs. 2,890 to the income returned is justified ? (11) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 5,189 to the income returned by the assessee is justified ? (12) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 6,253 to the income returned by the is justified ? (13) Whether, on the facts and in the, circumstances, of the case, the addition of Rs. 7,924 to the income returned by the assesses is justified ? " The assessee is an industrialist of Coimbator ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the department and no addition was made on this account. The Tribunal was of the view that though there were no means of verifying the actual amount of agricultural income saved from year to year the possibility of some savings therefrom and their utilisation to meet the household expenses could not be altogether ruled out. In that view, the Tribunal gave relief to the extent of Rs. 5,000 in the three years 1950-51, 1952-53 and 1953-54 and reduced the addition to Rs. 5,000 Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 3,000, respectively. Questions Nos. 1, 3 and 6 relate to this addition towards personal expenditure. On an examination of the accounts for the assessment years 1950-51 to 1957-58, it was found that in the account in the name of Laxmi Ammal wife of the assessee, there were two credits of Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 5,000 on 7th and 16th November, 1948, respectively, making a total of Rs. 25,000. On December 31, 1948, this sum of Rs. 25,000 was transferred to another account, leaving a balance of Rs. 275 to the credit of Laxmi Ammal. The account of Laxmi Ammal also contained cash credits and credits for sale of jaggery. There were also debits for purchase of shares and lands. On November 16, 1948, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the books of Krishna & Co., there was an accouilt in the name of Laxmi Ammal, the wife of the assessee. There were two deposits for Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 5,000 on November 7 and November 16, 1948, respectively, in her account. It is now not in dispute that this sum of Rs. 25,000 formed the source for purchase of shares and deposits of money subsequently in the name of Laxmi Ammal and the dividends and interest in dispute were -received on account of those shares and deposits. It was the case of the assessee that the sum of Rs. 25,000 belonged to Laxmi Ammal and those deposits did not belong to the assessee. In support of the contention the assessee produced a sale deed dated September 22, 1941, a mortgage deed dated July 16, 1938, and some affidavits from third parties who claimed to have had some money dealings with the mother of Laxmi Ammal. It is the claim of the assessee that from the income from these properties Laxmi Ammal saved a sum of Rs. 25,000 and that formed the deposit above referred to. The sale deed dated September 22, 1941, was executed in favour of one Venkatasami Naidu and minor, Balasubramanian, son of the assessee, represented by his guardian and mother, Laxmi Amma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le for Laxmi Ammal to have saved a sum of Rs. 25,000 from 1941-48 and that the income from the lands could not have been more than Rs. 750 per year. The question for consideration is whether this reference and finding of the Tribunal was justified in law, We are not here concerned with the question whether, as between Laxmi Ammal and her minor son, who was the true and real owner. We are concerned with the question whether the real owner of the property was the assessee and whether the deposit of Rs. 25,000 belonged to the assessee. There can be no doubt that the burden of proof was on the department to show that the real owner was the assessee and the amount belonged to the assessee. The amount is credited in the accounts of Krishna & Company in the name of Laxmi Ammal and the natural presumption is that it belonged to Laxmi Ammal. The Tribunal had nowhere found that the consideration or any portion thereof for the purchase of the land was advanced by the assessee. The document itself stands in the name of the minor son. No reason also has been given as to why the assessee should have purchased the land in the name of his minor son. The only thing which we find in the order of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
