2008 (11) TMI 118 - HC - Income Tax

Search and seizure savings bank accounts, F.D. s, bank lockers standing in the name of S and N assessee contended that they did not belong to him and belonged to his father - during the appeal proceedings, assessee filed the order of probate of will of late father, which included the assets standing in the names of S and N and were found to be correct finding of tribunal that father of assessee had the resources to bequeath, is finding of fact no substantial question of law arise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the will dated June 2, 1992.
2. Ownership of the properties bequeathed under the will.
3. Justification of the Tribunal's findings dislodging the Assessing Officer's and Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s conclusions.
4. Assessment of income and assets in the names of family members.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Will Dated June 2, 1992:
The core issue was whether the will dated June 2, 1992, was genuine. The Tribunal's finding that the will was genuine was based on the certificate of probate obtained from the Additional District Judge, Katni, on March 15, 1996. The Tribunal concluded that the properties bequeathed under the will belonged to the late L. P. Khanna. The court referenced the judgment in *Gopichand Gupta v. CWT* [1981] 132 ITR 308 (Cal), which held that the genuineness of a will cannot be questioned once probate has been granted by a competent court.

2. Ownership of Properties Bequeathed Under the Will:
The Tribunal concluded that the assets in the names of Suchandra and Neeta were not held in the "benamidar" account of the assessee, but belonged to the late L. P. Khanna. It was established that L. P. Khanna had independent income from contracts and property. The Tribunal found that the late L. P. Khanna had certain deposits in joint accounts with his children, which were properly explained.

3. Justification of the Tribunal's Findings Dislodging the Assessing Officer's and Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s Conclusions:
The Tribunal dislodged the findings of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which had concluded that the income bequeathed under the will actually belonged to C. K. Khanna and that L. P. Khanna was the "benamidar." The Tribunal's findings were based on detailed scrutiny of evidence, including the late L. P. Khanna's independent sources of income, the authenticity of the will, and the proper explanation of assets and deposits.

4. Assessment of Income and Assets in the Names of Family Members:
The Tribunal examined various aspects of the income and assets:
- The late L. P. Khanna had a property business and income from advances against existing properties.
- The assets in the names of Suchandra and Neeta were from the income of the late L. P. Khanna.
- The Tribunal found that the gifts received by the children and the household expenses were properly explained and justified.
- The Tribunal also addressed issues related to the construction expenses, loans, and purchases, concluding that they were properly accounted for and justified.

Conclusion:
The court found no substantial question of law involved in the appeals, as the Tribunal's findings were based on detailed scrutiny and were not perverse. The appeals were dismissed without any order as to costs.