Benami property and net wealth treatment: wife held to be real owner, so asset was excluded from the assessee's wealth.

Property purchased in the wife's name was not shown to be benami for the assessee, because the surrounding circumstances did not establish that she was merely a name-lender. The court considered the source of purchase money, possession, relationship, motive, custody of title deeds, and subsequent conduct, but found these factors insufficient to displace the registered title in the wife's name. It also held that the doctrine of advancement did not require a contrary inference and that, under the Marumakkathayam law applied on the facts, the husband's payment of consideration alone did not prove benami intention. The property was therefore treated as the wife's real asset and its value was excluded from the assessee's net wealth under section 4(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.

---

---

Issues: Whether the property purchased in the name of the assessee's wife was benami for the assessee, and if not, whether its value was exempt from inclusion in the assessee's net wealth under section 4(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.

Analysis: The property stood in the wife's name under the sale deed, and the evidence showed that the entire consideration was paid by the assessee. The Court applied the general indicia relevant to benami transactions, including the source of purchase money, possession, relationship of the parties, motive, custody of title deeds, and subsequent conduct, and held that none of these circumstances, taken separately or together, established that the wife was only a name-lender. It further held that the doctrine of advancement did not compel a contrary inference and that, on the facts of Marumakkathayam law as applied in the case, the mere fact that the husband paid the consideration was insufficient to show benami intention. The wife's name in the municipal records and payment of tax were treated as consistent with real ownership, while the inclusion of the property in earlier returns did not alter ownership.

Conclusion: The purchase was not benami for the assessee, the wife was the real owner, and the value of the property was exempt from inclusion in the assessee's net wealth for the relevant assessment year.

---