9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the deposit of Rs. 2,77,471 in Bharat Bank on January 19, 1951, is an unexplained income. 2. Whether the deposit of Rs. 2,77,471 in Bharat Bank on January 19, 1951, in the name of Bandhan Ram Bhadani is taxable in the hands of the Hindu undivided family Bandhan Ram and Sons. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Unexplained Income: The Tribunal, under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, referred the question of whether the deposit of Rs. 2,77,471 in Bharat Bank on January 19, 1951, is an unexplained income. The assessee, a Hindu undivided family (HUF) with Bandhan Ram as the karta, deposited Rs. 2,77,471 in Bharat Bank Ltd., Calcutta. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) found the explanation for the source of this deposit unsatisfactory, assessing it as income from undisclosed sources. This decision was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) and later by the Tribunal. The assessee claimed that the deposit came from withdrawals totaling Rs. 8,86,738 made between June 20, 1947, and March 24, 1948. However, the ITO, after verifying with the appropriate authority, found that neither the original nor the revised disclosure statements included the deposit of Rs. 2,77,471. The ITO also noted that the reasons for estimating personal expenses at Rs. 2,77,000 were different and unrelated to the deposit in question. The AAC found no indication that the deposit of Rs. 2,77,471 was included in the previously disclosed sum of Rs. 10 lakhs, nor was it part of the undisclosed income of Rs. 79,84,330 earned between 1939 and 1946. The AAC also noted the lack of correlation between the withdrawals ending in 1948 and the deposit made in 1951, suggesting that the funds could have been spent in the interim period. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and the explanations provided, concluded that the withdrawals between 1947 and 1948 could not be linked to the deposit made in 1951. The Tribunal also noted that the expenditure of the family during the years 1947-1950 was substantial, further weakening the claim that the withdrawn amount remained intact. Given the consistent findings of the ITO, AAC, and Tribunal, the court held that the deposit of Rs. 2,77,471 was unexplained income. 2. Taxability in the Hands of the HUF: The second issue was whether the deposit of Rs. 2,77,471 in the name of Bandhan Ram Bhadani is taxable in the hands of the HUF, Bandhan Ram and Sons. The Tribunal held that since Bandhan Ram, as the karta, claimed that the deposit was covered by the disclosure made by the Darshan Ram Group, and all deposits in his name were shown as belonging to the family, the deposit should be considered in the assessment of the HUF. The court noted that Bandhan Ram, in his explanation, did not assert that the deposit was from his individual earnings. Instead, he claimed it was from the HUF funds. The court also observed that the HUF had a business income of Rs. 50,380, indicating a source of income for the deposit. The court referred to relevant case law, including the decisions in Chattanatha Karayalar v. Ramachandra Iyer and G. Narayana Raju v. Chamaraju, which state that there is no presumption that a business standing in the name of the manager is a joint family business unless proven otherwise. However, in this case, the HUF had an established source of income, and the deposit was linked to the HUF funds. The court concluded that the deposit of Rs. 2,77,471 was taxable in the hands of the HUF, Bandhan Ram and Sons, as the funds were not proven to be from Bandhan Ram's individual income. Conclusion: Both questions were answered in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, concluding that the deposit of Rs. 2,77,471 was unexplained income and taxable in the hands of the HUF, Bandhan Ram and Sons. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.
|
