9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment years 1971-72 and 1972-73. (Rs. 21,450 during 1971-72 and Rs. 51,500 during 1972-73) for the purpose of investment in India during those two years ?" The only link which the assessee was able to show was the fact that the assessee's husband was residing and working at Singapore. The Incometax Officer found that there was no evidence whatsoever placed before him to show that the money had been brought in from Singapore to the extent mentioned in the order of reference, either by normal banking channels or by any other channels. He observed in the course of his orders that "the assessee has not produced any evidence to show that she brought in money from Singapore from out of above drawings". The assessee had only filed a statement o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me and assessed for the years 1967-68 to 1971-72 on spread over basis. She had tried to give a different version by a subsequent letter in November, 1973, wherein it was claimed that her husband had sufficient income in Singapore from out of which the monies could have been remitted, to India. However, she did not produce any document to establish that there was, in fact, a remittance from Singapore to India whether through banking channels or by channels outside the normal banking channels. The Tribunal has, in the course of its order, rightly held that the onus was heavy on the assessee to establish that the monies had been received from Singapore and for that absolutely no evidence was forthcoming. The Tribunal has also rightly observe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment orders passed in the assessee's case by the authorities of that country, subject to the condition that the assessee/migrant will be required to prove that the amount brought into India can directly be linked with the funds which the assessee had possessed in that country. This circular required the assessee to show her bank accounts in the country from which the money was claimed to have been repatriated, that assessment orders had been passed in respect of the income in that country ; and that there was proof of linkage with the funds possessed by the assessee In the other country and the amount spent in India. The Income-tax Officer has found that such a link had not been established even though, apparently, the bank accounts had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
