9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether there was any material before the Tribunal to hold that the sum of Rs. 10,719 standing in the name of the wife of the assessee as a deposit represented the undisclosed income of the assessee for the assessment year 1958-59. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Whether there was any material before the Tribunal to hold that the sum of Rs. 10,719 standing in the name of the wife of the assessee as a deposit represented the undisclosed income of the assessee for the assessment year 1958-59. The case concerns the income-tax assessment for 1958-59. The petitioner, a partner in the firm Messrs. Motilal Inderchand, had an item of Rs. 10,000 dated April 23, 1957, in the personal account of his wife, Smt. Munni Devi Daga, in the firm's books. An additional Rs. 719 was credited as interest. The Income-tax Officer treated this amount as undisclosed income of the petitioner due to the petitioner's inability to explain the source of the deposit. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner affirmed this decision. Upon further appeal, the petitioner explained that his wife received Rs. 9,000 in cash as presents at her marriage, which had grown to Rs. 15,000 by March 1952, and the deposit was made from this amount. However, the Tribunal found no evidence supporting this claim and noted the absence of account books from the petitioner's wife. Additionally, a similar deposit by another partner's wife on the same day was considered, leading the Tribunal to reject the appeal. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal's decision was unjustified as the deposit was substantiated by firm accounts and a declaration by the depositor. He contended that the burden of proof lay on the department to show that the money belonged to the petitioner, which was not discharged. The department countered that the Tribunal's finding of fact was binding and that the petitioner had the burden to establish the source of the funds due to the special knowledge presumed from the relationship with the depositor. The court examined whether the petitioner needed to prove the source of the money deposited by a third party. It was concluded that the mere relationship between the petitioner and the depositor did not imply special knowledge under section 106 of the Evidence Act. The firm's accounts, accepted by the department, provided prima facie proof of the deposit. The court determined that requiring further proof of the source was unjustified and that the Tribunal's adverse inference was incorrect. The court also found the Tribunal's reliance on the similar deposit by another partner's wife irrelevant and not material for the decision. The court referenced similar cases, agreeing with the principle that amounts shown in the name of a third party cannot be presumed to belong to the assessee without evidence from the department. The cited Supreme Court decisions were distinguished as they dealt with credits in the assessee's name, not a third party's. In conclusion, the court found no justification for the Tribunal's decision that the deposit was the assessee's undisclosed income. The question was answered in the negative, indicating the Tribunal's decision was unsustainable in law. No order as to costs was made.
|
