Burden of proof on excluded property funds: wife's joint-name asset was rightly included in agricultural income under the statute.

Section 9(2)(iii) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 was attracted where property stood in the joint names of the assessee and his wife and no acceptable evidence showed that the wife had independent funds for the purchase. The person claiming exclusion had to place material on record proving that the acquisition funds did not proceed from the assessee. The Tribunal erred in shifting the burden to the Revenue and in disturbing the concurrent factual findings of the assessing authority and first appellate authority, so its contrary finding was set aside and the Revenue succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 9(2)(iii) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, was attracted to include the income from property standing in the name of the assessee's wife in the assessee's agricultural income for the relevant assessment years.

Analysis: The property was purchased in the joint names of the assessee and his wife, and the authorities below found that no acceptable evidence was produced to show that the wife had independent funds for the purchase. The statutory setting required the person claiming the benefit of exclusion to place material on record to show that the funds for acquisition did not proceed from the assessee. The Tribunal erred in shifting the onus to the Revenue and in disturbing the concurrent factual findings of the assessing authority and the first appellate authority.

Conclusion: Section 9(2)(iii) was attracted, and the inclusion made by the assessing authority was ; the finding of the Tribunal was set aside and the Revenue succeeded.

---