1943 (9) TMI 15

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... essee a sum of ₹ 6,254 was the interest shown in the books of the assessee as appertaining to a sum in a khata which stood in the name of his wife - this was claimed as a deduction in that it was alleged to have been paid to the wife or credited to her account in the khata. The Commissioner finds as a fact that this is merely a book entry and that the lady is not a creditor at all and no money as paid to her by way of interest in the previous year as claimed. Another item of ₹ 1,243 is an income from property acquired in the name of the wife in the calendar years 1935 and 1938 for a total sum of ₹ 19,500. This income arose and was derived in the previous year. The assessee objected to the inclusion of this sum in his asses .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the 28th February 1936 states that the lady has been assessed on this 1,133 rupees together with a sum of ₹ 899 which was included for the purpose of return. Apparently this was the income from securities upon which tax was deducted at the source. The documents for 1990 and 1991 and the other lists at pages 18 and 19 also show that the Income Tax Officers in these years allowed deduction to the assessee where they were satisfied that the amount were paid as interest to the wife of the assessee and disallowed the others where they were not satisfied as to these being genuine transactions. In my opinion it was open to the Income Tax Department to take this circumstance in consideration that for the previous years the assessee was refuse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... m. For these reasons I am of opinion that the sum of ₹ 6,264 being the total of items 1 to 6 at page 30 claimed as having been paid by way of interest to the wife of the assessee was rightly included in the assessable income of the assessee. With regard to the sum of ₹ 1,253, however, the position is different, The Commissioner found that this is an income from the property which stands in the name of the lady and which was acquired in 1935 and in 1938 for ₹ 19,500. The documents of title are in the name of the lady. The onus in this case is upon the Department to show that the title was not with the lady, that she was not the owner and that she was merely a benamidars for the assessee and this is in accord with the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X