9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (6) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dividual and the relevant assessment years are 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71. In the course of assessment proceedings for the first of these three years, the Income-tax Officer found that the assessee had acquired a house for a consideration of Rs. 3,400 on 20th of November, 1957, in the name of his wife. The said house was reconstructed in the year 1962, and a portion thereof had been rented out to M/s. Ramdas Motor Transport Pvt. Ltd, the rent being Rs. 240 per month between 1962 and 1966 and Rs. 280 per month from 1967 onwards. The Income-tax Officer further found that the assessee had purchased another plot of land for Rs. 5,000 on May 17, 1960, also in the name of his wife and had constructed a house thereon in 1965 and was occupying th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner of Income-tax v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC), came to hold that the assessee had purchased the properties in question out of his own funds. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals and upheld the assessments. Undoubtedly, law assumes the apparent to be real and a person who asserts to the contrary has the burden to establish that the apparent does not represent the real state. On the basis of these propositions when the house property stood in the name of the wife and she seems to be the ostensible owner, it was for the revenue to establish that the assessee and not his wife who was the recorded owner was the real owner. There is no dearth of authority to support such a proposition. In fact, Mr. Mohanty for the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unreality of the trust put forward is not based on any evidence or the same is otherwise vitiated. Prima facie, the said finding is a finding of fact. The High Court, as seen earlier, directed the Tribunal to state a case and submit to the High Court the question set out earlier. From that question, it Appears that the High Court was of the opinion that for arriving at its finding the Tribunal had to interpret the two documents referred to in that question. This conclusion of the High Court appears to us to be an erroneous one. The Tribunal did not interpret those documents. It merely found itself unable to accept the correctness of some of the recitals in those documents. That does not mean that the Tribunal interpreted those documents. Wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
