9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether there was material to support the finding that the sum of Rs. 52,500 was the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources in the year of account. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Material to Support the Finding of Income from Undisclosed Sources: The primary issue revolves around the assessment for the year 1947-48 of a Hindu undivided family, with Nachiappa Chettiar as the karta. The relevant accounting period ended on April 4, 1947. The case involves a deposit of Rs. 52,500 made in the name of Nachiappa's second wife, Meenakshi Achi, on February 5, 1947. The assessee claimed that the money was gifted to Meenakshi by Swaminathan Chettiar, Nachiappa's adoptive father, in fulfillment of an ante-nuptial promise. However, the Income-tax Officer found that Swaminathan could not have provided the funds due to insufficient cash balance and lack of evidence of such a gift in his financial records. The Tribunal and the department found that the sum of Rs. 52,500 deposited in Meenakshi Achi's name came from Nachiappa. This view was affirmed on appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, upon direction from the court, submitted a statement showing that the account books of Swaminathan did not support the claim of the gift. The Tribunal found that the money must have come from Nachiappa, especially since there was no other source from which Meenakshi could have obtained the funds. The court referenced the Supreme Court case of Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, where unexplained credits were treated as concealed income. The court noted that the principle from this case applied here, as the only issue was whether the money came from the father-in-law or the husband. Since the claim of the gift by Swaminathan was disproved, the department had no alternative but to conclude that the money came from the husband. The court also discussed the case of Ramkinkar Banerji v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which established that property in a married woman's name is presumed to be hers unless proven otherwise. However, in this case, the evidence showed that Meenakshi had no means other than her husband's wealth. Finally, the court considered the observations of the Privy Council in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bombay Trust Corporation Ltd., which emphasized the need for evidence to support assessments. However, the court found that the circumstances in the present case were different, as the only question was the source of the funds, and the evidence pointed to the husband. Conclusion: The court concluded that there was sufficient material to support the finding that the sum of Rs. 52,500 was the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. The question referred to the court was answered in the affirmative and against the assessee, who was ordered to pay the costs of the department, with a counsel's fee of Rs. 250.
|
