9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (8) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for the assessment year 1957-58 on June 27, 1958, disclosing an income of Rs. 28,057 as under: Rs. 1. Remuneration received from Devidayal Sales Pvt. Ltd. 22,500 2. Property income 495 3. Net income from interest on amounts deposited with M/s. Devidayal Tulsiram Finance Corporation 5,061 The income-tax assessment of Lala Tulsiram for this year was not completed by the Income-tax Officer. Regarding wealth-tax assessment, notice under section 14 of the Wealth-tax Act was served on Lala Tulsiram during his lifetime for the assessment year 1957-58. By his letter dated January 20, 1958, he informed the Wealth-tax Officer that his net wealth was below the taxable limit and hence he was not sending the return. No further action was taken during his lifetime. The explanation of Lala Gopaldas was that these amounts did not represent his personal income but were saved by his father from the considerable profits that he earned right from 1918 onwards. The Income-tax Officer did not accept this explanation. He took the view that the amount was kept as secret income of Gopaldas which he tried to bring to surface by claiming it to be his inheritance from his father. In suppor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said that Tulsiram was assessed on large incomes and even from the assessment year 1948-49 to 1957-58, the total income assessed was Rs. 4,78,072. This included income accruing to his wife from the trust created by Tulsiram himself and this income itself was about Rs. 1,75,927. It was urged that there was nothing improbable in Tulsiram acquiring jewellery worth Rs. 1,50,000 and having cash balance of Rs. 20,000. Secondly, it was urged that Tulsiram had made considerable withdrawals from the business in which he was interested and in the year 1959 itself he had withdrawn an amount of Rs. 2,67,000 which could have been utilised for purchase of jewellery. Lastly, it was urged that Tulsiram had admitted in 1949 that his wife possessed jewellery worth Rs. 15,000 as on March 31, 1948. His wife died in 1956 and the jewellery was acquired at the time of his marriage more than 30 years ago. At that time the price of gold per tola was Rs. 20. It was said that in the statement made in the year 1949, the value of Rs. 15,000 was shown at the original cost and that jewellery would have been worth more than a lakh of rupees by March 31, 1957. It was made clear before the Tribunal that these alte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,50,000 in the total income of Lala Tulsiram. According to the Tribunal, the assessee clearly failed to trace the jewellery shown as on March 31, 1957, to the jewellery as held on March 31, 1948. The Tribunal pointed out that it was called upon to accept the explanation based on bits of evidence here and there and each bit of evidence leaves considerable room for drawing inferences either way. In order to accept the contention of the assessee that this jewellery was existing as on March 31, 1948, one has to presume that all the jewellery belonged to Lala Tulsiram's wife, that the value as declared on March 31, 1948, was the cost of that jewellery 30 years earlier and that the jewellery was intact not only at the time of the lady's death but also on March 31, 1957, to be handed over to Lala Gopaldas on the death of Lala Tulsiram. The Tribunal also pointed out that it will be required to ignore the gap in evidence regarding conversion of jewellery into gold and also ignore the other possibilities of disposal of ornaments, namely, transfer to daughters and other sons by Tulsiram's wife. As regards the case of cash withdrawal, the Tribunal pointed out that there was not a single big w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he deceased himself had about his income. Thus, the burden of proving the source of acquisition of the assets is not the same on the legal heir as in the case of the burden qua acquisition on the deceased assessee himself. As regards the second part of the question he submitted that the taxing authorities and the Tribunal were in error in coming to the conclusion that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof. At the outset, it may be stated that, so far as the first part of the question is concerned, there can be no general proposition of law applicable to all cases irrespective of the facts and circumstances thereof. One thing which can be said without much hesitation is that the burden is always on the assessee, if an explanation is asked for by the taxing authorities or the Tribunal, to indicate the source of acquisition of a particular asset admittedly owned by the person concerned. It will depend upon the facts of each case to decide what type of facts will be regarded as sufficient to discharge such onus, nor can the onus be different qua different persons, namely, one type of burden on the assessee and another type of burden on the legal heir. If regard be had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
