9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (3) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essed in his hands, is perverse?" This reference relates to the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. The assessee is a doctor. He submitted his return of income for the assessment year 1973-74 declaring income of Rs. 17,303 inclusive of salary, private practice, property income and income from interest from his minor sons. The Income-tax Officer found that the assessee had purchased immovable property Rs. 60,000 in the names of his minor sons, Arun Kumar and Anil Kumar, during the accounting years relevant to the assessment years of 1973-74 and 1974-75. The assessee explained to the Income-tax Officer by his letter dated March 3, 1976, that the house was purchased by the assessee's sons. He also declared the source of their income as unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated March 5, 1977, upheld the order passed by the Income-tax Officer. Second appeal was filed by the assessee against the said order before the Tribunal which accepted the claim of the assessee and held that : "16. In my opinion, the contention of the assessee must be accepted. The sale deed is in the names of both the minors. The copy of the sale deed is on the paper book. For purchasing the property in question, loans were raised from third parties. It is not the case of the Department that the loans were bogus. These loans were given by third parties to Shri Anil Kumar and Shri Arun Kumar. Rs. 13,000 were advanced by the mother of the minors. Similarly, Rs. 24,000 were given on loan by the assessee to the minor sons. The Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oresaid discussions, it is clear that the property in question was purchased by the minor sons of the assessee. The property income of this property could not be assessed in the hands of the assessee. So, the property income added in the hands of the assessee in both the years under consideration shall be excluded from the computation of his income." The Revenue filed two reference applications under section 256(1) of the Act before the Tribunal requesting it to refer the abovementioned common question to this court. The said reference applications were rejected by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Income-tax approached this court under section 256(2) of the Act. This court directed the Tribunal to refer the abovementioned ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sfied with the explanation of the assessee then it should have examined the assessee, his wife and his minor sons but they were never examined. He submitted that all of them were examined. Their evidence was already on record. There is some substance in what Mr. Bhandawat has submitted. But, in our opinion, nothing would turn out from it whether they were examined or not particularly when there was clear documentary evidence on record which goes to show that the minors received the loans from which they constructed the house. That apart, the registered sale deed was also very much there on record which was not in the name of the assessee but in the names of his minor sons. At this stage, we must point out that it was never the case of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
