9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (2) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0, assessed income from SOP. The only dispute in this appeal relates to the assessment of Rs. 11,000, as the assessee's income from house property. 3. The case of the assessee before the ITO was that the aforesaid property which yielded an income of Rs. 11,000, according to the computation of the ITO, did not belong to him in his individual capacity, but it belonged to the HUF of which he was the karta. It may be stated that this house was situate at Gandhi Nagar, S. K. Puri, Patna. The assessee explained that he received a gift of the land measuring four kathas from his brother-in-law as per the deed of gift dated 30-9-1972. He constructed the house thereon with the help of the HUF funds. It was stated that the aforesaid HUF was assessed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oans and the advances from the GPF account were drawn by the assessee in connection with the construction of another house at Muzaffarpur and those loans and advances were not utilised in the construction of the Patna house. Further, it was explained that the cost of construction of the Patna house was such that it could not have been made from the salary income of the assessee and that the HUF had enough agricultural income to finance the construction of the Patna house and, in fact, it has been so done. The ITO, however, rejected the above explanations. Regarding the affidavit, he observed that it was sworn ten years after the deed of gift and so it did not have any evidentiary value. Regarding the other points, the ITO did not make any c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the ITO in support of his reasoning were not tenable in law. He referred to the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Gopiram Bhagwan Das v. CIT [1960] 39 ITR 513 for the proposition that when there is evidence to show that an HUF has funds of his own, then the presumption in law is that any property acquired by a member of the said HUF belonged to the HUF itself unless the member proves otherwise. He also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mallappa Girimallapa Betgeri v. R. Yellappagouda Patil AIR 1959 SC 906 wherein it has been held that the property acquired by the karta of an HUF will be deemed to be the property of the HUF in case the HUF had enough funds to finance the cost of the property acquir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 956] 30 ITR 181, an affidavit is a valid piece of evidence and it cannot be ignored without proving the same to be untrustworthy after examining the deponent. The mere fact that a period often years has elapsed between the gift deed and the affidavit will not make the affidavit in any way invalid. Evidently, the need for affidavit arose later on and it was sworn at the appropriate time. The deponent has not been examined and so relying on the case of Mehta Parikh Co., I hold that the land in question which is situated in Patna city must be taken to belong to the HUF of which the assessee was the karta. Coming to the cost of construction of the house thereon, the assessee has explained the same to be Rs. 1,36,000 incurred during the three ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
