9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (8) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant previous year for the assessment year with which we are concerned ended on the 31st March, 1965. The assessee-company is manufacturer of wire netting, wirenails, strapping, etc. There was deposit of Rs. 20,000 as on 1st March, 1965, in the assessee's books of account in the name of Nirmala Debi, wife of V.K. Agarwala, the brother of one of the directors of the assessee-company. The explanation of the assessee was that the lady had received Rs. 25,000 from her father in November, 1962, at the time of her marriage, out of the gifts received by him on her behalf and kept in deposit with M/s. Madanpur Coal Co. Ltd., of which he was the managing director. The ITO did not doubt the fact of receipt of the gift or the withdrawal of the amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view of the above finding of the ITO, an amount of Rs. 20,000 could not be assessed in the hands of the assessee. The Tribunal after consideration of the facts was of the opinion that the observations of the ITO in the last mentioned assessment order were of no avail at this stage particularly when the assessment of Sri V. K. Agarwala had not been finalised. Since the ITO had not given any finding on merits in the case of the lady, the Tribunal considered whether the credit was explained in the hands of the assessee or not. On the merits of the case, the Tribunal agreed with the authorities below that the assessee on the facts of the case had failed to explain the sources of the amount. In arriving at its finding the Tribunal gave reasons a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is explained in the hands of "the assessee or not. Coming now to the merits of the case, we agree with the authorities below that the assessee on the facts of the case has failed to explain the source of the amount. Without considering as to how the sum of Rs. 25,000 was actually utilised by the lady's father, we must hold that the burden to prove that the said amount continued to remain with the lady and was deposited with the assessee-company, lies on the assessee, which has not been discharged. The normal human conduct would hardly require the withdrawal of an interest bearing amount for keeping it as idle cash at home. In this connection, it would be relevant to point out that the lady had received the gift of Rs. 25,000 from her uncle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, and thereafter her husband, was in the habit of keeping the money invested and earning interest. Previously this was done. In fact, in the assessment of the lady it was shown that the lady had a bank account. In these circumstances, there is no explanation on behalf of the lady either by producing any cogent or authentic evidence or by producing any bank account to show in such a situation why the lady kept the said sum of Rs. 25,000 uninvested with her in cash. (3) It also appears that the sums were withdrawn at the time of the marriage of the lady from the company where it was lying invested and the said sums were withdrawn not all at the same time but in two different dates. (4) There is also no evidence by any documentary evidence o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
