Assessee's House Contribution Taxable, Correct Ratio 10:34.5:52 Applies

The court held that the assessee's contribution towards the construction of a house property constituted a transfer of assets, making the income includible in the assessee's total income. The correct proportion for apportioning the income was determined to be 10:34.5:52, different from the ratio applied by the lower authorities. The court deemed the initial computation as illegal and directed a recalculation based on the correct ratio, ruling in favor of the Revenue without awarding costs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Transfer of funds by the assessee to his wife for the construction of a house property as per section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Justification of the Tribunal in apportioning the income arising from the property in a specific ratio.

Analysis:
The case involved two main issues. Firstly, the court had to determine whether there was a valid transfer of funds by the assessee to his wife for the construction of a house property as per section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the assessee had contributed Rs. 34,500 towards the construction of the house. The court held that this contribution constituted a transfer of assets otherwise than for consideration, making the income arising from it includible in the assessee's total income for the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the court answered the first question affirmatively in favor of the Revenue.

Secondly, the court examined the Tribunal's decision to apportion the income from the property in the ratio of 1:3. The total investment in the construction was Rs. 96,502, with different amounts contributed by the wife, the assessee, and through borrowings. The court noted that section 64 of the Act does not apply to outside borrowings. Therefore, the correct proportion for apportioning the income was determined to be 10:34.5:52. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal had incorrectly apportioned the income in the ratio of 1:3, assessing 3/4ths of the income in the hands of the assessee. The court deemed this computation as illegal and directed the authorities to recalculate the income based on the correct ratio. Consequently, the second question was answered in accordance with this determination, with no costs awarded in the matter.

---