9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal had material to sustain income from an undisclosed source? 2. Whether the legal heir failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding undisclosed income? Analysis: The case involved questions referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, regarding the sustenance of income from an undisclosed source and the burden of proof on the legal heir. The deceased, Bate Krishna, had introduced capital amounting to Rs. 86,907 in his books, which the Income Tax Officer treated as income from undisclosed sources. The legal representative, Chandra Krishna, filed a return showing nil income, attributing the amount to a will made by his grandmother, Smt. Rampa Devi. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) accepted the genuineness of the will and quashed the assessment based on estate duty proceedings. However, the Appellate Tribunal confirmed Rs. 38,000 as income from undisclosed sources, rejecting the explanation for the remaining amount. The High Court analyzed the facts and previous decisions. The AAC had accepted the genuineness of the will and the value of Smt. Rampa Devi's estate, including cash in hand. The Tribunal acknowledged the family's wealth and accepted explanations for jewellery and part of the cash. However, the Tribunal rejected the explanation for the remaining amount without a proper basis, relying on conjecture. The High Court found no justification for this rejection and deemed it speculative. The Court emphasized that the entire property left by Smt. Rampa Devi should have been considered in explaining the capital introduced by Bate Krishna. Consequently, the High Court disagreed with the Tribunal's decision to sustain the addition of Rs. 38,000 as income from undisclosed sources. Both questions were answered in the negative, in favor of the assessee. The assessee was awarded costs and counsel fees amounting to Rs. 200 each.
|
