9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Assessment of agricultural income for the years 1978-79 and 1979-80 under section 9(2)(iii) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950. Detailed Analysis: The case involved the assessment of agricultural income for the years 1978-79 and 1979-80 under section 9(2)(iii) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950. The Department sought clarification on whether the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in not applying sub-section (2) of section 9 to the respondent/assessee. This provision deals with the computation of total agricultural income concerning the transfer of assets between spouses. The proceedings were initiated based on a preassessment notice issued in 1988, as the accounts were not produced for verification. The notice highlighted the issue of the wife's share of income from a rubber estate and the lack of evidence regarding the source of her income for property purchase, as required by the law. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer considered the purchase of property in the name of the assessee and his wife, noting the absence of evidence regarding the source of the wife's income for the purchase. The officer's order applied section 9(2)(iii) of the Act based on these findings. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also rejected the contention that the property was purchased using the wife's funds due to the lack of evidence supporting this claim. However, a discrepancy was noted in the printed copy of the appellate order, necessitating reliance on the original document for accurate information. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the findings of the lower authorities, emphasizing the need for the assessee to provide evidence regarding property ownership and the source of funds for purchase. Despite the wife being the apparent purchaser of the property, the Tribunal stated that the burden of proof lay with the assessee to establish the source of funds. The Tribunal's decision to exclude the property from the husband's income was based on the lack of evidence linking the property purchase to the husband. The High Court criticized the Tribunal's decision, stating that the burden of proof was on the assessee to provide evidence as per statutory requirements. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal erred in shifting the burden of proof to the Revenue and disturbing the conclusions of the lower authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal's order was quashed, and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision confirming the Agricultural Income-tax Officer's orders was upheld. The judgment favored the Revenue, emphasizing the importance of complying with statutory provisions and providing necessary evidence in such cases.
|
