9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (9) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the income returned to the extent of Rs. 5,000 was justified on the materials? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances. of the case, the addition of Rs. 1,719 to the income returned is justified ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition to the income returned to the extent of Rs. 5,000 was justified on the materials? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 2,264 to the income returned is justified ? (5) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 479 to the income returned by the assessee is justified? (6) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition to the income returned to the extent of Rs. 3,000 was justified on the materials? (7) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 2,713 to the income returned is justified ? (8) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 4,060 to the income returned by the assessee is justified ? (9) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 2,644 to the income returned by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee contended that he was in receipt of agricultural income during the relevant period and that he met the additional expenditure from such income. He also produced evidence to show that during the assessment years 1949-50 and 1951-52 the Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the claim of the assessee that he was in receipt of a sum of Rs. 8,791 per year from his agricultural lands. In fact, the agricultural income for 1951-52 was estimated by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner at Rs. 32,500. The assessee also relied on the fact that for the assessment years 1954-55 to 1956-57 the household expenses of Rs. 5,000 per year was accepted by the department and no addition was made on this account. The Tribunal was of the view that though there were no means of verifying the actual amount of agricultural income saved from year to year the possibility of some savings therefrom and their utilisation to meet the household expenses could not be altogether ruled out. In that view, the Tribunal gave relief to the extent of Rs. 5,000 in the three years 1950-51, 1952-53 and 1953-54 and reduced the addition to Rs. 5,000 Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 3,000, respectively. Questions Nos. 1, 3 and 6 relate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 1956-57. It cannot be disputed that the assessee is an industrialist and the expenses for the family must have been much more than the amount shown in the accounts as personal drawings. The Tribunal was also aware of the possibility of some savings from the agricultural income during the relevant years. Having regard to all these facts found, the Tribunal estimated and gave relief to the extent of only Rs. 5,000 per year. We are of opinion that the addition to the income returned on the basis of a finding that the assessee must have made some amount towards his personal expenses from undisclosed income was justified on the materials. In the books of Krishna Co., there was an accouilt in the name of Laxmi Ammal, the wife of the assessee. There were two deposits for Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 5,000 on November 7 and November 16, 1948, respectively, in her account. It is now not in dispute that this sum of Rs. 25,000 formed the source for purchase of shares and deposits of money subsequently in the name of Laxmi Ammal and the dividends and interest in dispute were -received on account of those shares and deposits. It was the case of the assessee that the sum of Rs. 25,000 belonged to L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adri Mills Ltd. on July 10, 1946, for a sum of Rs. 38,250. According to the resolution of Kadri Mills Ltd., the land belonged to the assessee and that he had agreed to sell it to the mills. The sale proceeds were originally credited to the assessee's account, though, in 1951, he transferred half of the total consideration to the Credit of Laxmi Ammal's account in his books. There was no direct evidence to prove that it was Pappammal who gave money for the purchase of the land and that the land was purchased in the name of the minor for the benefit of Laxmi Ammal. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner was also of the view that it was not possible for Laxmi Ammal to have saved a sum of Rs. 25,000 from 1941-48 and that the income from the lands could not have been more than Rs. 750 per year. The question for consideration is whether this reference and finding of the Tribunal was justified in law, We are not here concerned with the question whether, as between Laxmi Ammal and her minor son, who was the true and real owner. We are concerned with the question whether the real owner of the property was the assessee and whether the deposit of Rs. 25,000 belonged to the assessee. There can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the lands could not have been more than Rs. 750 yer year. Though this reasoning had not been adopted by the Appellate Tribunal, we are of opinion that that conclusion is not based on any evidence and it is really contrary to the other evidence available. The Tribunal in the appeal relating to the year 1951-52 had also noticed that the wife of the assessee was receiving large income, from agricultural lands. Having regard to the fact that Laxmi Ammal, the wife of the assessee, was entitled to 937 acres and this extent she was in possession of till a portion it was sold some time in 1946 to Kadri Mills, it will not be unreasonable to infer that she would have saved the sum of Rs. 25,000. As we have already stated, we are not concerned with the question as to whether the land or the income thereof belonged to Laxmi Ammal or her minor son. If really the minor son was the owner, his mother would be in the position of a trustee so far as the receipt of the income is concerned. Suffice it for us to say that the evidence on record did not establish that either the purchase in the name of the minor of the lands or the deposit of Rs. 25,000 in the name of Laxmi Ammal was benami for the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
