9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (4) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee had purchased immovable property for a sum of Rs. 60,000 in the name of his minor sons, Anil Kumar and Arun Kumar, during the accounting years relevant to the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. According to the Income-tax Officer, the house property in question was purchased by Dr. Sohan Sankhla himself in the name of his minor sons and so the income earned from the house property was added to the income shown by Dr. Sankhla in his returns in respect of the aforesaid two assessment years. The order passed by the Income-tax Officer was affirmed on appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Bikaner, by his order dated March 5, 1977, and he held that in fact Dr. Sankhla had purchased the house property in que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... verse. The Department has filed these two applications in this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act as mentioned above. D. B. Incometax Case No. 67 of 1978 relates to the assessment year 1973-74, while D. B. Income-tax Case No. 66 of 1978 relates to the assessment year 1974-75. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Bikaner, by his order dated March 5, 1977, held that the assessee was physician having good professional income by way of private practice, as well as by way of salary from the State Government and that he purchased property situated at House No. 52, N-Block, Sri Ganganagar, in the name of his two minor sons. He furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was also assumed by the Tribunal that there was no material on record to show that in reality the assessee was the owner of the house property in question and the entire investment was made by him. As a matter of fact, the case of the Department is just the contrary, as according to the Department, the assessee was the owner of the house property and the investment for purchasing the said property was made by the assessee. At this stage, we are not called upon to decide as to whether the Tribunal could have come to the conclusion at which it arrived on the basis of the material on record. But there is no doubt that the case of the Department from the beginning has been that the purchase of the house property was made by the assessee in d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oncern v. State of Bihar [1963] 49 ITR 152 (SC)). A similar question, as to whether the transaction was genuine or not arose in the case of CIT v. Golcha Properties (P.) Ltd. [1980] 126 ITR 809, where a Bench of this court held that the Tribunal committed a grave error when it held that the Department must prove by positive evidence that the income of the contractor was in fact the income of the assessee. It was observed in that case that although the Tribunal was justified in holding that the burden could only be discharged by the Department by leading positive evidence only, the Department could rely upon the facts of the case established by the assessee's own record, as highlighted by the Income-tax Officer in his order. We are of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
