9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (3) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Ind) of 1986 and its refusal to refer the questions by order dated November 21, 1990, passed in R. As. Nos. 104, 105 and 106/(Ind) of 1990 : " (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 78,000 on account of unexplained investment in the property in the name of the assessee's wife when it was clearly established that the gift by Shri Devkinandan Choubey to the assessee's wife was false as the said person had very limited means ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in coming to the conclusion that the assessee was not the owner of the property in question when the assessee's wife had no means to invest merel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the alleged loan advance made by the assessee to his wife, to the income of the assessee in the assessment year 1982-83. In the subsequent assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85, the rental income of the house was also added to the income of the assessee. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated February 2, 1986, sustained the addition of Rs. 78,000 only but deleted the addition of Rs. 8,000 and maintained the assessment of income from the said property. In second appeal, the Tribunal by its common order dated February 16, 1990, reversed the concurrent findings of the two authorities below about the ownership of the property, deleting all the aforesaid additions. The Tribunal also rejected the Department's appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elves in full agreement with the Tribunal that the burden of proof was on the Department to show that the rest of the consideration amount was also paid by the assessee himself and that the wife was a mere benamidar for her husband. The Tribunal found that no attempt was made on behalf of the Department to lead evidence to show that the assessee-husband had any funds outside the known sources of his income from which he could have contributed the sum of Rs. 70,000 to his wife for purchasing the said house. The Tribunal relied upon the decision in the case of L. Sheo Narain Lal, In re [1954] 26 ITR 249 of the Allahabad High Court and held that merely because the Income-tax Officer did not consider the story of gift by the uncle to her niece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
