9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (4) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ooks making an assessment for the assessment year 1954-55, found cash credits totalling to Rs. 47,996 to the credit of four ladies as detailed below : Sl. No. Amount Date Name (1) Rs. 11,980 16-7-1953 Smt. Shanti Devi, wife of Shri Ved Parkash, partner. (2) Rs. 11,980 17-7-1953 Smt. Raj Rani, wife of Shri Nand Lal, partner. (3) Rs. 11,980 30-12-1953 Smt. Lajjya Wanti, wife of Shri Ram Naranjan, partner. (4) Rs. 11,980 22-1-1954 Smt. Suhag Wanti, wife of Sat Parkash, partner, The explanation given by the assessee was that Bhagwanti Devi, wife of Dharam Chand, died on April 12, 1953.. After her death, her almirahs and trunks were ransacked and jewellery, gold and cash in addition to her wearing apparel were found. They we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds in the names of third persons, the onus of, proof is not on the assessee to show the source or nature of the cash credit but it lies on the department to show by some evidence that the amount standing in the name of a third party does not belong to it but belongs to the assessee. He further submits that in the present case the department did not lead any evidence to show that the amount standing in the names of third persons, namely, Suhag Wanti, etc., in the account books of the assessee-firm belonged to the assessee. He also urges that unless there was any evidence to show that, in fact, the amount belonged to the assessee, the same could not be added to its income. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the revenue has vehemently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of proof can be made to depend exclusively upon the fact of a credit entry in the name of the assessee or in the name of a third party. In either case, the burden lies upon the assessee to explain the credit entry, though the onus might shift to the Income-tax Officer under certain circumstances. Otherwise, a clever assessee can always throw the burden of proof on the income-tax authorities by making a credit entry in the name of third party either real or pseudonymous. " This view was followed by another Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in M. M. A. K. Mohideen Thamby and Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax , wherein it was observed that with regard to credit entries in the names of Partners as well as credit entries in the names o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom business of which he claimed to be the real owner. When both these explanations were rejected, as they have been, it was clearly open to the Income-tax Officer to hold that the income must be concealed income. There is ample authority for the position that where an assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amount of cash received during the accounting year, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature." The question has again been decided by the Supreme Court in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. Commissioner of Income-tax in which the above view was followed. In that case while dealing with the assessment for the year 1948-49, the Income-tax Officer not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner of Income-tax , wherein it has been held that there is no presumption in law that an amount standing in the name of the wife belongs to the husband. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the money standing in the name of the assessee's wife must be presumed to belong to her and the assessee cannot be taxed in respect of such an amount. It is also held that the onus of proof in such a case will not be on the assessee but will be on the department to show by at least some material that the amount standing in the name of the assessee's wife does not belong to her but belongs to the assessee. The above case is distinguishable on facts. In that case, the amount which was alleged by the assessee to be of his wife and added to his incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra Roy's case did not apply to it. In the present case also, the Income-tax Officer and the appellate authorities have rejected the explanation given by the assessee and the depositors regarding the source of money. It was observed by the Tribunal that the money belonged to the firm and the names of the ladies had been merely used as a cloak. The same view had been taken by the Income-tax Officer as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner said finding is a finding of fact based on the material on the record. The aforesaid facts show that Basant Lai Om Parkash's case does not help the assessee. It, on the other hand, supports the contention of the revenue. We are of the opinion that in the case of entries in the name of third persons in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
