9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (12) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f interest bearing advances to various parties, interest income of which was disclosed in the return was not forthcoming. He, therefore, while completing the assessment not only subjected the assessee to tax on the interest income of Rs. 13,379 shown in the return but also on the share from the firm Bankimchandra Co. amounting to Rs. 17,787. Besides, the ITO added Rs. 20,000 on account of unexplained investment in the firm Bankimchandra Co. and another estimated Rs. 28,480 on account of unexplained investments on interest bearing advances to various parties. When the matter went up in appeal, the AAC held that the ITO should examine the terms and conditions of the partnership deed of the firm Bankimchandra Co. for determining whether or not the interest received from the said firm by the assessee, who was a minor, was assessable as his income. In the interest of justice, therefore, so that the assessee can be properly heard and sufficient opportunity is given, the AAC set aside the assessment. The AAC further held that the share of the assessee-minor from the firm Bankimchandra Co. had already been assessed and included in the total income of the assessee's father Shri Suma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed of the firm Bankimchandra Co. for determining whether or not the interest received from the firm was assessable in his hands. 4. Shri Krishnan submitted that the assessment order in the case of the assessee's father was not before the ITO when the assessment was made by him ex parte and, therefore, on the basis of this assessment order the AAC wrongly came to the conclusion that the assessee's share of income from the firm Bankimchandra Co. could not be included in the assessee's total income. 5. Shri Krishnan further pointed out that the gift-tax assessment order subjecting the assessee's grandmother to gift-tax was not before the ITO and, therefore, the AAC ought not to have considered this additional material which was not before the ITO for the purpose of holding that this amount together with the income accrued therefrom was satisfactorily explained, and the investment of Rs. 20,000 by the assessee in the firm Bankimchandra Co. 6. Shri Krishnan vehemently argued before us that the material which was filed before the AAC regarding the nature and source of investment in interest bearing loans to various parties was not before the ITO in the course of assessment pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st earned depositing this amount with various parties. Here again Shri Mulla submitted that the gift-tax assessment order subjecting the assessee's grandmother to gift-tax only proved beyond doubt that even according to the revenue authorities the gift was valid and genuine and there was no justification for disbelieving the gift. Shri Mulla also pointed out that there was no mention in the assessment order why the assessee's claim of gift from the grandmother as well as the income from investment of these amounts, the total of which amounted to more than Rs. 20,000 in this year was not accepted by the ITO. He, therefore, vehemently argued before us that the nature and source of investment of Rs. 20,000 in the firm Bankimchandra Co., was satisfactorily explained and the treatment of this amount as unexplained and, consequently, as the assessee's income was unjustified. On this basis Shri Mulla submitted that the addition of Rs. 20,000 made by the ITO on this account was rightly deleted in appeal by the AAC. 11. Coming to the other item of Rs. 28,480 for unexplained investment in interest bearing deposits with various parties, Shri Mulla admitted that the material filed before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income of the assessee's father only clarified that this share income was to be included in the total income of the assessee's father. Even if this assessment order was not before the revenue authorities, this share income could only be included either in the total income of the assessee's father or the total income of the assessee's mother depending upon whosoever's other income was greater and in any case this share income could not be included or assessed in the hands of the assessee-minor. The AAC, therefore, rightly came to the conclusion that the share of the assessee-minor from the firm Bankimchandra Co., where he was admitted to the benefits of the partnership could not be included in his total income and in deleting the addition made on this account by the ITO. On this issue, therefore, the order of the AAC appears to be perfectly justified and is upheld. 14. In the details which were filed before the ITO and copy of which was filed also before us in the assessee's paper book and as mentioned in the assessment order the assessee claimed to have received a gift of Rs. 15,000 on 17-6-1968 from his grandmother which was invested in various firms, banks, etc., and which sw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
