9911796707
TMI Blog1957 (4) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the 11th of February, 1948, and the sale deed dated the 29th of June, 1949, were in the name of Punu Lal. On the 29th of June, 1949, there was an agreement between all the members of the Hindu joint family to the effect that the house property was really purchased by Punu Lal and the Hindu joint family had nothing to do with it. On the 1st of July, 1949, Janki Sao executed a kerayanama in favour of Punu Lal, agreeing to pay a rent of ₹ 24 per month for the use of the house for the purpose of the family business. On the 29th of November, 1950, there was a deed of family arrangement between Janki Sao and his two sons, Lakhan Lal and Punu Lal. It was recited in this document that the house property was purchased by Punu Lal from his individual funds and that Janki Sao and Lakhan Lal had nothing to do with it. Certain other properties were divided between the father and his two sons. In a proceeding taken under section 34 of the Income-tax Act the Hindu undivided family was asked to explain the source of the two amounts, namely, ₹ 18,000 and ₹ 11,500. In the course of these proceedings under section 34 Punu Lal and certain other witnesses were examined by the inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing in gold and silver ornaments which yields income. Punu Lal has no independent source of income. We have already considered the reality of the source from which he is said to have found ₹ 29,000. In our opinion, the said amount could have come only out of the joint family business and no other source. It is important to note that the family business was being carried on in the very premises, which is purchased in the name of Punu Lal. It is difficult to believe that Punu Lal would have invested ₹ 29,000 to earn an income of ₹ 24 per month by way of rent. Having regard to all the evidence placed on record we have no hesitation in rejecting the contention that the investments were out of the funds of Punu Lal. Under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act the Appellate Tribunal has submitted the following question of law for the determination of the High Court: Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the investments in the name of junior member of the Hindu undivided family can be presumed to be investment of the assessee Hindu undivided family, and the unexplained amount of Rs, 29,000 was an income of the Hindu undivided famil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the whole of the property of the joint family is joint, including any acquisition by a member of the joint family. The law on this point has been summarised at page 268 of Mulla's Hindu Law, nth edition, as follows: When a nucleus of joint family property is proved or admitted a presumption arises that the whole of the property of the joint family is joint including any acquisition by a member of the joint family. But no such presumption would arise if the nucleus is such that with its help the property claimed to be joint could not have been acquired. In order to give rise to the presumption the nucleus must be such that with its help the property claimed to be joint could have been acquired. When however it is not known whether the nucleus was such that from its income the property could be acquired, and no other source of income is disclosed, the presumption is to be made that the nucleus was sufficient to enable the property to be acquired. Such being the presumption, if any member of the family claims any portion of the property as his separate property, the burden lies upon him to show that it was acquired by him in circumstances which would constitute it his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arked that it was very difficult to believe that Punu Lal would have invested ₹ 29,500 to earn an income of ₹ 24 per month by way of rent. Having considered all these materials, the Tribunal had no hesitation in holding that investments were made not out of the private funds of Punu Lal but out of the income of the Hindu undivided family. Apart from the question of onus and apart from the question of any legal presumption we are satisfied that there was proper material before the Appellate Tribunal for supporting the inference that the disputed amount of ₹ 29,500 represented the secreted profits of the Hindu undivided family and was liable to be taxed in its hands. On behalf of the assessee Mr. S.N. Dutta conceded that the question involved in this case is a question of fact but learned counsel said that there is no evidence at all to support the finding of the Appellate Tribunal and, therefore, the High Court had jurisdiction to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal on this point. We do not agree with this contention. We have already said that the finding of the Appellate Tribunal is based upon proper material and we are satisfied that in the presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
