Benami transaction presumption: documented title shifts burden to the claimant and tax provision was applied after failure to rebut.

Whether the statutory provision for taxing income from property held in another's name was attracted turned on documentary title and burden of proof: the assessment relied lawfully on a sale deed showing the assessee as purchaser and discharged the initial burden, shifting the onus to the assessee to prove benami status and lack of beneficial ownership. The assessee failed to produce corroborative witnesses or evidence to substantiate the claimed gift, and appellate and remand findings upheld the penalty; the provision was held attracted against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were attracted.

Analysis: The assessment record showed a sale deed and purchase of a house in the assessee's name for Rs. 14,500 without satisfactory evidence explaining the source; the department lawfully relied on the apparent state of affairs shown by the deed to discharge its initial burden. Once the initial burden was discharged, the burden shifted to the assessee to prove that he was only a benamidar and that the property and income did not belong to him. The assessee failed to produce his wife as a witness or any other material to substantiate the claimed gift; the Tribunal and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had examined the remand report and affirmed the penalty. The contention that a different officer levied the penalty was not raised before the Tribunal in the statement of case and, on the merits, was found without substance in the remand and appellate proceedings.

Conclusion: Section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was attracted; the question is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee.

---