2002 (8) TMI 35 - HC - Benami Property

High Court rules business belongs to son, not assessee, income not taxable solely on proprietorship relation.

The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the business of Rawat Electricals, Ramganjmandi, belonged to his son, Suresh Kumar, and not to ... Benami Assessment - Business Run By Minor Son Of Assessee - 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in holding that the business in the name and style of Rawat Electricals at Ramganjmandi belonged to Shri Gulzarilal Rawat and not to Shri Suresh Kumar Rawat? - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of ₹ 8,000 was not an investment made by Shri Suresh Kumar Rawat in the concern of Rawat Electricals at Ramganjmandi and was made by his father Gulzarilal?' - Normally, in the reference, this court does not interfere in the finding of the Tribunal but the finding of the Tribunal as to whether Rawat Electricals, Ramganjmandi, is independent or benami property of Shri Gulzari Lal Rawat appears to be perverse. In such circumstances, this court should interfere. In our view with the above admitted facts, it cannot be said that the business of Rawat Electricals, Ramganjmandi, is the business of the assessee, Shri Gulzari Lal Rawat. The Tribunal has committed error - we answer both the questions in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Issues:1. Determination of ownership of business in the name of Rawat Electricals at Ramganjmandi for assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76.2. Assessment of investment in Rawat Electricals made by Shri Suresh Kumar Rawat or his father, Shri Gulzarilal Rawat.Analysis:1. The Income-tax Officer initially held that the income from Rawat Electricals, Ramganjmandi, belonged to the assessee, despite the assessee's claim that the business was started by his son, Shri Suresh Kumar. The officer doubted Suresh Kumar's ability to run the business due to his age and questioned his investment of Rs. 8,000. Consequently, the income from Rawat Electricals was assessed in the hands of the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal upheld this decision.2. The assessee contended that the business of Rawat Electricals, Ramganjmandi, belonged to his son, Suresh Kumar, who invested Rs. 8,000 after disclosing it under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme. It was explained that Suresh Kumar, despite being a student, employed his maternal uncle to manage the business. The business was registered and had dealings in the open market. The High Court found that the Tribunal's conclusion that the business belonged to the assessee and not Suresh Kumar was incorrect. The Court held that the business income cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee solely based on the proprietorship being the son of the assessee. The Court deemed the Tribunal's finding as perverse and ruled in favor of the assessee.In conclusion, the High Court answered both questions in the negative, favoring the assessee and ruling against the Revenue. The Court found that the business of Rawat Electricals, Ramganjmandi, did not belong to the assessee, Shri Gulzarilal Rawat, but to his son, Suresh Kumar. The Court emphasized that the business's registration, dealings, and independent nature supported the assessee's claim of non-involvement, ultimately leading to a decision in favor of the assessee.