TMI Blog1999 (10) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the assessee, The Assessing Officer held that the assessee had purchased a property for a consideration of Rs. 80,000 in the names of Sri Abdul Rahiman, Sri K. Abdulla Kunhi and Sri K. P. Abdulla. After purchasing the property in their names, the assessee constructed a compound wall at an estimated cost of Rs. 40,000. The assessee took the stand that he had nothing to do with either the purchase of the property or construction of a compound wall. This plea was not accepted. A sum of Rs. 40,000 was added to the income of the assessee as income from undisclosed sources for the assessment year 1972-73 relating to investment in the construction of the boundary wall. The rental income was added and tax was levied for the rest of the years ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operty in question and/or regarding the benami nature of the transactions. Certain factual aspects were highlighted by the Revenue, which were analysed in detail by the Tribunal to conclude that the Revenue had failed to prove that the assessee was the real owner of the concerned properties. The Tribunal considered the relevant factual aspects. In the case at hand the ordinary presumption of law is that the apparent state of facts is real unless the contrary is proved, and therefore the burden of proving that a transaction is sham or that the person in whose name the property stands is not the real owner but is only a benamidar for another, is on the taxing authorities. For determining the question no absolute formulae or acid test, uniform ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aising an inference of that fact. The essence of benami is the intention of the parties, and not unoften, such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through. But such difficulties do not relieve the person asserting the transaction to be benami of the serious onus that rests on him, nor justify the acceptance of mere conjectures or surmises as a substitute for proof. It is not enough merely to show circumstances which might create suspicion, because the court cannot decide on the basis of suspicion. It has to act on legal grounds established by evidence (See Krishnanand Agnihotri v. State of M. P. [1977] AIR 1977 SC 796 and Jaydayal Poddar v. Mst. Bibi Hazra [1974] AIR 1974 SC 171). No question of law arises u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
