1979 (7) TMI 51 - HC - Income Tax

Agricultural Income Tax, Assessment Year, Burden Of Proof, Income From Property, Total Income

Summary

Issues:
1. Inclusion of income from properties purchased in the name of the applicant's wife in the assessable income.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the High Court of Kerala involved a reference made by the Kerala Agrl. I.T. Appellate Tribunal under section 60 of the Agrl. I.T. Act regarding the inclusion of income from properties purchased in the name of the applicant's wife in the assessable income. The appellant, an agriculturist, filed a return for the year 1968-69 showing a net income of Rs. 2,678 without maintaining any accounts. The assessing officer rejected the return as it included income from 2.82 acres of coconut garden in the name of the appellant's wife, which had been assessed as the appellant's income in prior years under section 9(2) of the Agrl. I.T. Act. The Tribunal, after considering previous proceedings, concluded that the income from the properties in the wife's name should be included in the appellant's assessable income.

The main contention of the assessee was that the properties were purchased by the wife, and he had no involvement with them. However, previous Tribunal decisions indicated that the burden of proof regarding the ownership of the income-generating properties was on the assessee. The Tribunal, in the current order, relied on the previous decision that the amount for the property purchase was transferred by the assessee to the wife. The High Court rejected the argument that the prior assessment orders could not be considered, citing the Supreme Court's decision in New Jehangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT. The Court held that the Tribunal was entitled to rely on previous orders as evidence for its current conclusion, emphasizing that prior assessment proceedings are significant pieces of evidence for forming opinions in subsequent years.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to include the income from the properties in the wife's name in the appellant's assessable income. The Court found that the Tribunal's reliance on previous assessment proceedings was justified and not against the law. Therefore, the question was answered in favor of the revenue and against the assessee, with no order as to costs. The judgment will be communicated to the Tribunal as required by law.