9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al and not to HUF." "(ii) That the Dy. CIT(A), Agra has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,000 made by the AO on account of income from land situated at Sonkha Adda, Mathura, without properly appreciating the facts on record that the same belongs to individual and not to HUF." 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the issue are that the assessee in his return of income has declared income from agriculture land taken on "Adhbatai" and commission at Bus Adda. During the course of enquiry, the AO came to know that the assessee had purchased following agricultural land in his name. Particulars. Particulars Area in acre Date of purchase Amount in Rs. Agricultural land at village Maho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the brothers. The assessee further explained that the joint family owned 14.22 acre ancestral agricultural land and thereafter, the family, purchased agricultural land in the name of family members including in the name of the assessee, his brother, Udaiveer Singh and other family members from 1977 to 1987 out of savings from agricultural income. According to assessee, presently, the family owns about 77 acre of land in various names including himself, his brothers s/Shri Udaiveer Singh, Raj Kumar, Chetan Singh and Kishan Singh, who is Karta of HUF and elder brother of his father. 4. The explanation offered by the assessee was not accepted by the AO for the reason that no evidence was produced to substantiate the claim of the assessee th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the hands of HUF only. 6. In regard to income from plot situated at Sonkha Adda, Mathura, added in assessee's income, it is explained before the Dy. CIT(A) that the Sonkha Adda land also belonged to the HUF and was assessed in the hands of the assessee without assigning any reason, logic or material on record. The Dy. CIT(A) held that investment in Sonkha Adda land was also made by Kishan Singh HUF. Therefore, the income from the same should also be assessed in the hands of HUF and not in the hands of the assessee, hence, he directed accordingly. 7. During the course of hearing before us, the learned Departmental Representative relied on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CED vs. Smt. Shiela Prasad (19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red without the aid of the joint family. In order to give rise to the presumption, the nucleus must be such that with its help the property claimed to be joint could have been acquired. Whether the evidence adduced by a party is sufficient to shift the burden which initially rested on him of establishing that there was adequate nucleus out of which the acquisitions could have been made is one of the facts depending on the nature and extent of the nucleus. What is to be shown is that the family had, as a result of the nucleus, sufficient surplus income from which acquisition could be made." 9. During the course of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the assessee filed a paper book containing 52 pages, which is placed on record. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the source of the money was a false explanation, it was open to the Tribunal to draw the inference that the amount was paid out of the funds of the HUF and, therefore, this amount represented the secreted profits of the HUF for the assessment years in question. There was proper material before the Tribunal for supporting the inference that the disputed amount represented the secreted profits of the HUF and was liable to be taxed in its hands." 11. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances and also judicial pronouncements discussed above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Dy. CIT(A). Hence, we dismiss both the grounds of appeal for all the assessment years. 12. The third ground of appeal for the asst. yrs. 1989 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
