TMI Blog1935 (11) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers of this Court. The proposition of law which, as ordered by this Court, he has submitted is whether upon the facts as found by the lower Appellate Court (meaning thereby the Assistant Commissioner) the assessee is entitled to a deduction of ₹ 15,352 as claimed by him . The facts as stated by the Commissioner are these. The assessee has an interest in the Sitalpur Colliery wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income. The Income Tax Officer seems to have accepted the other figures of the assessee but apparently treating the lady to be his benamidar refused to allow him to deduct ₹ 15,353 for the royalty and included this amount for the purpose of the assessment. The assessee appealed to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax who upheld the order of the Income Tax Officer But allowed a deduction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is amount on the ground that the lady was a benamidar, they could only do so on some evidence and not on the ground that there was no evidence that the lady was the real owner. The facts found by the Assistant Commissioner and his reasons summarised by the Commissioner are : (a) That the right by virtue of which the payment of ₹ 15,353 was made stands in the name of S. Devi, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion that a property standing in the name of a married Hindu lady does in fact belong to her husband. The ordinary presumption of law is that the apparent state of affairs is real unless the contrary is proved. The absence of evidence one way or the other did not under the law justify the Assistant Commissioner in drawing an inference that the lady was a benamidar of her husband. If the Assistant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
