9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Assessment of Rs. 15,000 as the income of the assessee, Rai Bahadur S.N. Ganguli, for the assessment year 1947-48. Detailed Analysis: The case involved the assessment of Rs. 15,000 as the income of the assessee, Rai Bahadur S.N. Ganguli, for the assessment year 1947-48. The Income-tax Officer added this amount, which was the value of high denomination notes encashed by the assessee, to the declared income. The assessee failed to explain the source of this amount satisfactorily, leading the Income-tax Officer to treat it as secreted profit. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision, concluding that the entire amount of Rs. 15,000 was undisclosed income. The main question before the High Court was whether there was sufficient material to justify this assessment. The High Court analyzed the two components of the Rs. 15,000: Rs. 11,000 encashed in the name of the assessee's wife and Rs. 4,000 encashed in the name of the assessee himself. Regarding the Rs. 4,000, the Court held that the burden of proof lay on the assessee to demonstrate the source and nature of the amount. Since the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for this sum, the revenue authorities were justified in treating it as undisclosed income. The Court cited established principles that when an assessee cannot prove the source of a receipt, it is presumed to be income unless proven otherwise. Therefore, the assessment of Rs. 4,000 as the assessee's income was upheld. However, the Court took a different stance on the Rs. 11,000 encashed in the name of the assessee's wife. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal rejected the wife's explanation that the amount belonged to her, as no supporting evidence was presented by the assessee. The Court emphasized that in cases where money stands in the name of the wife, the presumption is that it belongs to her unless proven otherwise. The burden of proof, in this case, was on the Income-tax Department to demonstrate that the amount actually belonged to the assessee. Since no such evidence was provided, the Court held that there was no justification for taxing the Rs. 11,000 as the assessee's income. In conclusion, the High Court ruled that there was no substantial evidence to support the assessment of Rs. 11,000 as the income of the assessee's wife, Hemprabha Ganguli. Conversely, there was sufficient material to justify the assessment of Rs. 4,000 as the income of the assessee, Rai Bahadur S.N. Ganguli. Therefore, the Court answered the question posed by the Tribunal accordingly, with no order on costs.
|
