9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (10) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s includible in the net wealth of the assessee. The facts can be summarised in this way : The property was purchased by the assessee's wife on June 12, 1951, for Rs. 17,750. It was the assessee who paid the whole consideration for the sale. He included the value of the property in his previous wealth-tax returns and the income from the property in income-tax returns. In his return for the relevant assessment year be showed the value of the property as Rs. 19,438 but claimed exemption under section 4(4) of the Act. According to him it was on account of a mistake that he happened to include the value of the property and the income from it in his previous returns. The Wealth-tax Officer rejected the assessee's claim. That decision was upheld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uting the net wealth of an individual, there shall be included, as belonging to that individual (a) the value of assets which on the valuation date are held (i) by the spouse of such individual to whom such assets have been transferred by the individual, directly or indirectly, otherwise than for adequate consideration or in connection with an agreement to live apart, ......... (4) Nothing contained in clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall apply to any such transfer as is referred to therein made by an individual before the 1st day of April, 1956, and the value of any assets so transferred shall not be included in the computation of his net wealth. " On the provisions in section 4(4) there is no doubt that by taking the sale deed in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Gosain that it does not apply to Hindus, in Moulvie Sayyud Uzhur Ali v. Mussumat Bebee Ultaf Fatima that it does not apply to Muslims and in Palani Mudaliar v. M. Natarajan that it does not apply to Indian Christians. In the case of persons governed by Marumakkathayam law, the theory of advancement was being applied from ancient times in a modified manner. When a husband purchased property in the name of his wife a presumption was being raised that it was intended for the benefit of the sub-tarwad consisting of her and her children. Some guidance is afforded to us in this matter by the decision of the Travancore Cochin High Court in Eravi Pillai v. Valli Amma and the Kerala High Court in Kunhammad v. Amina. In the latter decision it was hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by the assessee he had included the value of this property and in the income-tax returns the income from it. The asset happened to be included in the previous wealth tax returns without noting the exemption under section 4(4) of the Act. As regards the inclusion of the income from the property in the previous income-tax returns that happened to be included as it was bound to be included under section 16(3)(a)(iii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. These inclusions in the previous returns would not make the assessee the owner of the property if otherwise he was not. Our conclusion, therefore, on the application of the rules of law relating to benami transactions to the facts of the present case, is that the purchase of the property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
