1997 (10) TMI 13

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... It is not in dispute that the husband and wife have separate holdings from which they derive agricultural income. It is also not in dispute that the properties were acquired by them in the year 1964 under the sale deeds executed by their vendors separately in the name of the husband and separately in the name of the wife. It is further not in dispute that the assessment of these two individuals was done separately from the year 1975-76 right up to 1987-88. The assessments were made on the basis of the returns filed by them separately and for the assessment year 1988-89 they were permitted to compound their liability for agricultural income-tax under section 65 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, again separately. The Commiss .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... wife. The husband has not stated that the consideration for the purchase of the property which stood in the name of his wife was paid by him. This statement was to the contrary. The Commissioner has found fault with the assessee for not having produced the sale deeds of the year 1964 and for not adducing evidence regarding the separate source of funds of the wife. The order of the Commissioner is, it was submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader, in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, more particularly, section 9(2)(a)(iii) of the Act which provides that in computing the total agricultural income of any individual for the purpose of assessment, there shall be included so much of the ag .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ave been satisfied by the Revenue. The burden of proof was on the Revenue to show that there was a transfer by the husband for no consideration or the consideration, if any, was inadequate. The question of the wife having to adduce evidence regarding the source of her income 15 years earlier, and from out of which she acquired the property which admittedly stood in her own name, did not arise. Learned counsel for the Revenue, however, placed reliance on a decision of this court in the case of Ganga Bai v. State of Tamil Nadu [1996] 221 ITR 59. The court therein placing reliance on section 106 of the Evidence Act held that the person who asserts that a certain amount of income has been derived from the lands held by him/her has to establis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X