9911796707
TMI Blog1955 (3) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supply Co. The assessee's case is 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 Co. were all held by the Hindu undivided family in their names, as the funds said to have been contributed by these coparceners of the family to the Electr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 to the assessee family and the account book of the assessee family shows that it was credited to the Electric Supply Co. The account book of the Electric Sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 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 that amounts paid by different coparceners of a Hindu undivided family came out of the funds of that family. Hence there is no legal basis for this point. Coming now to the second point, it seems to me that the Appellate Tribunal has misdirected itself on the question of onus of proof. In D.D. Kapoor v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa [1955] 27 I.T.R. 348, a Bench of this Court, of which my learned brother a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 in that case that, where an amount stood in the name of the assessee's wife, the onus of proof was not on the assessee but was on the Income-tax department to show by, at least, some materials that the amount did not belong to the assessee's wife but to the assessee himself. It is clear from what I have said above that the Appellate Tribunal placed the onus wrongly upon the assessee to prove that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
