Clubbing of spouse's income turns on proof of independent acquisition and separate title to property.

Agricultural income from lands standing in the wife's name was held liable to be clubbed with the husband's income because the wife failed to prove an independent source of acquisition; purchase deeds and mortgages alone were insufficient, and adverse inference was justified where no accounts or bank records were produced. By contrast, income from 50 cents of land settled on the wife by her father before marriage could not be clubbed, since the title was shown to be her separate property. The revised assessment was therefore sustained except for exclusion of income from that settled land.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the agricultural income from lands standing in the wife's name could be clubbed with the husband's income on the ground that the wife failed to establish independent sources for acquisition; (ii) Whether the income from the 50 cents of land settled by the wife's father prior to marriage could be clubbed with the husband's income.

Issue (i): Whether the agricultural income from lands standing in the wife's name could be clubbed with the husband's income on the ground that the wife failed to establish independent sources for acquisition.

Analysis: The revisions concerned revised assessments made after the Commissioner inferred that the properties in the wife's name had been acquired out of the husband's income. The Court applied the principle underlying section 106 of the Evidence Act and held that the facts relating to the wife's independent source of funds were within her special knowledge. Mere reference to purchase deeds and mortgages was not enough to prove independent resources. In the absence of accounts, bank records, or other independent material showing the source of funds, an adverse inference against the wife was justified. The Court held that the burden to establish that the properties and the resulting income were exclusively the wife's lay on the wife in these circumstances.

Conclusion: The clubbing of the income from the lands standing in the wife's name was upheld, and the assessee failed on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the income from the 50 cents of land settled by the wife's father prior to marriage could be clubbed with the husband's income.

Analysis: The 50 cents of land had been received by the wife from her father by settlement in 1951, before marriage, and that source was clearly independent of the husband. Although no satisfactory material was produced regarding the quantum of income from that land, the origin of title itself was established as the wife's separate property. On that footing, the income referable to that land could not be treated as the husband's income.

Conclusion: The income from the 50 cents of settled land was not liable to be clubbed with the husband's income, and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revisions succeeded only to the limited extent of excluding the income arising from the 50 cents of land settled on the wife by her father, while the revised assessment was otherwise sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the source of acquisition is within the special knowledge of the assessee, the burden lies on that assessee to prove independent resources, and income from property proved to be separately acquired before marriage cannot be clubbed with the other spouse's income.

---