Benami ownership and unexplained investment require credible evidence; suspicion and estimated household expenses cannot justify additions.

Where a house property stands in the wife's name, the Department must prove with credible material that the transaction is benami and that the investment ily belonged to the assessee before invoking unexplained-investment treatment under section 69. Untested affidavits, if not intrinsically unreliable, may be considered, and a mere failure to fully accept the wife's source-of-funds explanation does not by itself establish the assessee's ownership. Additions for low household expenses also require concrete evidence and cannot rest on assumption or conjecture. The discussion therefore emphasises that both benami allegations and estimated household-expense additions must be supported by material evidence, not suspicion alone.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the investment in the house property standing in the name of the assessee's wife could be treated as the assessee's unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (ii) Whether the addition made for low household expenses was justified.

Issue (i): Whether the investment in the house property standing in the name of the assessee's wife could be treated as the assessee's unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The sale deed stood in the wife's name, so the apparent ownership was in her favour. The burden lay on the department to establish that the transaction was benami and that the investment was really made by the assessee. The affidavits of the assessee and his wife, not having been tested by cross-examination and not shown to be intrinsically unreliable, could be acted upon. Even if the wife's explanation of the source of funds was not fully accepted, that by itself did not establish that the money belonged to the assessee. On the record, there was no material beyond conjecture to connect the investment with the assessee.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 22,500 as unexplained investment was not sustainable and was rightly deleted.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition made for low household expenses was justified.

Analysis: The assessee's disclosed income and the family circumstances did not furnish a basis for the estimate made by the Income-tax Officer. The estimate of higher household expenditure rested on assumption rather than concrete material, and there was no adequate evidence to support the addition.

Conclusion: The addition for low household expenses was not justified and was rightly deleted.

Final Conclusion: The departmental appeal failed, and the relief granted by the appellate authority was sustained in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Where property stands in the name of the assessee's wife, the department must prove benami ownership with credible material; untested affidavits and mere suspicion do not justify an addition for unexplained investment, and additions for household expenses cannot stand on conjecture alone.

---