9911796707
TMI Blog1955 (3) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that shares are held in the Electric Supply Co. as follows: M.L. Rungta (as representing the Hindu undivided family) ... as. 4 M.G. Rungta ...4 B.N. Rungta ...4 S.R. Rungta ...2 An outsider ...2 The assessment years in question are 1945-46, 1946-47, 1947-48 and 1948-49. But the assessment in respect of each of the assessment years does not have to be separately considered because the point involved is the same. The Income-tax Officer held that the shares allotted to M.G. Rungta, B.N. Rungta and S.R. Rungta in the Jugasalai Electric Supply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was any material before the Appellate Tribunal on the basis of which it could be held that the capital said to have been contributed by M.G. Rungta and B.N. Rungta was really capital advanced by the assessee family. Appearing for the assessee Mr. Dutta has drawn our attention to the abstracts of accounts appearing at pages 86 to 91 of the paper book. The account book of the firm Harkarandass Mangilall of Calcutta, in which the assessee family is admittedly interested, shows that M.G. Rungta deposited a total amount of ₹ 20,000 on different dates and B.N. Rungta deposited a sum of ₹ 20,000 in one lump sum with this firm in the account of Jugasalai Electric Supply Co. The whole of this amount of ₹ 40,000 was transferred t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 72,100 mentioned above was advanced by the family to the Electric Supply Co. The capital of ₹ 20,000 each contributed by M.G. Rungta and B.N. Rungta is a part of this sum of ₹ 72,100. The capital contributed in the names of these two members of the family, therefore, came from the funds of the family . The second point is that M.G. Rungta and B.N. Rungta were unable to prove that the amounts of ₹ 20,000 each advanced by them came out of their personal funds and not out of the funds of the assessee family. So far as the first point is concerned, there can be no doubt that M.G. Rungta and B.N. Rungta are members and coparceners of the assessee which is a Hindu undivided family. There is, however, no presumption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the amounts contributed by them came from their personal funds. The fact that this is the legal position follows also from another line of reasoning. It is a well-recognised principle that the ostensible must be held to be the real state of affairs unless the contrary is shown. It is on the basis of this principle that a Bench of this Court decided in Ramkinkar Banerji v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa [1936] 4 I.T.R. 108 that, unless the department proved to the contrary, a property held by the assessee's wife could not be held to belong to the assessee. In this connection, I may also refer to another decision of this Court in S.N. Ganguly v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa [1953] 24 I.T.R. 16. It was held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
