Benami business income assessment upheld where seized materials and surrounding facts showed the named proprietor was only a name lender.

Income from a business standing in another person's name may be assessed in the assessee's hands where the surrounding primary facts show the named proprietor was only a name lender and the business was in substance benami. The Tribunal relied on seized lease documents, bank dealings, guarantees, advances, withdrawals, and papers recovered from the assessee's bedroom to conclude that the third party lacked independent means to own and run the jewellery business. The court treated that conclusion as a pure finding of fact drawn from cumulative evidence and noted that the statutory presumption arising from search material under section 132(4A) remained unrebutted; such a finding is not disturbed in reference unless perverse or unsupported by evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the income from Archana Jewellery was assessable in the hands of the assessee on the footing that the business, though standing in the name of A. N. Chellappan, belonged to the assessee.

Analysis: The Tribunal had found, on the basis of the seized lease document, bank dealings, guarantees, advances, withdrawals, and documents recovered from the assessee's bedroom, that Chellappan had no independent means to own and run the jewellery business and was only a name lender. The court held that the question whether the business was benami and belonged to the assessee depended on primary facts and the cumulative effect of those facts. It applied the settled principle that a finding of fact is not open to interference in reference unless unsupported by evidence or perverse. The court also held that the presumption arising from materials seized in search under section 132(4A) remained unrebutted.

Conclusion: The income from Archana Jewellery was rightly assessed in the hands of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the Revenue, and the inclusion of the jewellery business income in the assessee's assessment was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A finding that a business is benami and belongs to an assessee, when drawn from cumulative primary facts and supported by evidence, is a pure finding of fact and is not interfered with in reference unless it is perverse or has no evidentiary basis.

---