9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces from where investment was made by them. The entire case of the Revenue rests on the CBI Charge sheet framed by the CBI which was subsequently dropped. Revenue has failed miserably to prove that the assessee was a benami owner of the impugned properties. The assessee therefore cannot be treated as owner of the properties. The decision referred of the Hon ble Kerala High Court in K. Mahim Udma [ 1999 (10) TMI 45 - KERALA HIGH COURT] casting an onerous burden on the party alleging benami transaction aptly covers the issue in hand, in favour of the assessee. Therefore there is no occasion to tax rental income earned therefrom in the hands of the assessee.Further the fact that rental income from these properties was returned in the hands of respective owners has been accepted by the Revenue all along, also strengthens the case of the assessee. In view of the above we hold that the rental income cannot be treated to be that belonging to the assessee. Addition made of the same is directed to be deleted. B adla income earned by the assessee - HELD THAT:- As entire case of the Revenue rests on the CBI charge sheet which ultimately did not culminate in any charges being framed on the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... government employee, and it was revealed that he had accumulated assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. On the basis of the inquiry made during this search by the CBI and the reports of the CBI, reassessment proceedings was initiated on the assessee, resulting in various additions being made to his income. Additions confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) have been challenged before us in various grounds raised before us. 5. The ground no.1 raised by the assessee reads as under: 1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,05,000/- on account of rental income earned on the immovable properties held in the hands of the appellant despite the fact that the respective owners have shown the rental income in their I.T.Returns. 6. In the above grounds, the assessee has challenged the addition made on account of rental income earned on immovable properties owned by his family members treating them to be benami properties of the assessee. The property is Ratna Jyoti Complex which was purchased in 1998-99 and treated as unexplained investment of the assessee in the assessment framed for the said year. The property was registered in the nam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egorically held that the burden of showing that a particular transaction is benami and the owner is not real owner, always vests on person asserting it to be so and this burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of definite character, which would either directly prove facts of benami or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising an inference of that fact. Copy of the order was placed before us. Our attention as also drawn to para 4 of the said order, which reads as under: 4. On consideration of the factual aspects, the Tribunal observed that there was no material to show that the assessee made investment for the property in question and/or regarding benami nature of transaction. Certain factual aspects were highlighted by the revenue, which were analysed in detail by the Tribunal to conclude that the revenue had failed to prove that the assessee was the real owner of the concerned properties. The Tribunal considered the relevant factual aspects . In the case at hand, ordinary presumption of law is that the apparent state of facts is real unless the contrary is proved and, therefore, the burden of proving that a transaction is sham or that the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee. That this case was subsequently dropped on the death of the assessee during the pendency of proceedings before the court where charges were to be framed. 11. Thus, it is evident that the case of the Revenue of the impugned properties being benami of the assessee rests merely on the preliminary report of the CBI which did not see the light of day by framing concrete charges against the assessee. 12. Further, we have perused the statement recorded by CBI of the assessee placed before us at P.B 57-61 and as rightly pointed out by the Ld.Counsel the assessee denied having anything to do with the said properties, he stated the names of the owners of the properties and also revealed sources from where investment was made by them. None of the above facts stated by the assessee was contradicted by the Revenue at any point in time. The entire case of the Revenue rests on the CBI Charge sheet framed by the CBI which was subsequently dropped. 13. It is evident therefore that the Revenue has failed miserably to prove that the assessee was a benami owner of the impugned properties. The assessee therefore cannot be treated as owner of the properties. The decision referred to by Ld.Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns. As noted above in earlier part of our order the entire case of the Revenue rests on the CBI charge sheet which ultimately did not culminate in any charges being framed on the assessee. Therefore, not much credence can be given to allegations levelled on the assessee in the charge sheet. Besides we have noted that Sh. Pawar filed an affidavit stating on oath that all income from badla activities carried out in D.D Enterprises related to him and had nothing to do with the assessee. The Revenue has been unable to point any infirmity in the affidavit of Shri Pawar. Even income from the badla business carried out in D D Enterprises was shown to be duly returned to tax by the said entity ,being proprietorship of Sh.Pawar. In the light of the above facts we do not find any substance in the addition made by the Revenue of income badla of Rs. 11,477/-. The said addition is therefore deleted. 22. Ground of appeal No.2 is allowed. 23. Now we take up ground no.3 and 4 : 24. Ground No.3 and 4, it was stated related to the addition made to the income of the assessee on account of income earned from investments, which were held to be benami of the assessee. The ground no.3 being in relation t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... returns filed for the said year, which was demonstrated to both the authorities below, and the said fact was accepted by the Department with no change in the stand till date. The ld.DR relied on the order of the ld.CIT(A). 27. We have heard contentions of both the parties. Since pleadings of the assessee admittedly with respect to the addition made to the income of the assessee on account of interest earned on FDRs. and Post-Office MIS owned by the family members of the assessee but treated to be benami investment of the assessee, is identical to that made in ground no.1 with respect to rental income earned from the alleged benami properties of the assessee our decision rendered in ground no.1 will squarely apply to the impugned issues also. We have dealt extensively with the contentions made by the assessee in ground no.1, at para 14 of our order above following which we hold that there is no case for treating the impugned income as that related to the assessee, since Revenue has been unable to discharge its onus of proving that these investments were benami of the assessee. 29. In view of the same, the addition made of interest income earned from FDR amounting to Rs. 84,445/- an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
