9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (8) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the said finding. 3. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the appellant runs a departmental store on a small scale and deals in packed foodstuff, cosmetics, provisions, etc. his wife works as an employee and was paid a monthly salary of Rs. 400. She was supervising sale-counter and managing the business as manager. The assessee's wife was a partner of the firm and she possesses a licence to deal in pharmacy and provision drugs. Thus, it was contended that she is qualified to be a partner in a drug store and as such, she can manage the affairs of the general food and provision stores. According to the ld. Counsel, she has acquired special knowledge in the field and as such her income is not to be inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. D.R. Even the authorities below did not dispute the above facts. From the evidence on record, it comes out that the appellant's wife has been working as counter-sales girl since 1962. At that time she was a partner in M/s Allied Emporium, Kenya and was also holding licence to sell pharmacy and poisons. Copy of the licence is in the paper-book. The present job of the appellant's wife is to look after the cosmetics food counter where mostly the ladies approach. The appellant's wife was having experience of counter-sales girl and is capable of persuading the customers. The salary received by the assessee's wife is only on account of the said services rendered by her. 5. Now, in view of the proviso to s. 64(1)(ii), it is to be seen whethe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of the assessee comes within the proviso to s. 64(1)(ii) of the Act, 1961. So the income earned in the name of the wife of the assessee cannot be included in his hands under s. 64(1)(ii) of the Act, 1961. Hence, the addition in question in both the years should be deleted. Accordingly, the addition in this regard for both the years is deleted. 7. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the ITO added sum of Rs. 11,000 as capital gain on the sale of house in the hands of the assessee. The ld. AAC agreed with the said finding. Before the Tribunal, the appellant took the stand that the addition was uncalled for. The appellant's father, Muljibhai Shah had inherited property purchased at Bombay City Sur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In affidavit, it was clearly stated that the HUF property in question was purchased by the father of the assessee on 9th July, 1936 for Rs. 1,125 out of the ancestral funds. This affidavit is quite detailed and the authorities below did not cross examine the deponent of the affidavit. Copy of the release deed is also on the paper book. It was executed by the father of the assessee on 8th Jan., 1970. In this deed, it was also stated that the said house property was acquired by the HUF funds. After considering the evidence on record and the contentions of the assessee, it is clear that the house in question was purchased in 1936 out of the HUF funds. So, the said HUF property was ancestral property. As a result of this deed, the said propert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
