TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (11) TMI 100
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rn on 5-5-1957 meaning thereby that on 31-3-1968 which is the date on which the assessee's previous year for the assessment year 1968-69 ended, he was only about 10 years and 9 months old and at the close of the previous year for the assessment year 1970-71 he had gained two more years in age. The income-tax returns for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1972-73 were filed purporting to be on behalf of the assessee by his father and the natural guardian on 28-2-1973 voluntarily. The income shown in those returns was income from interest on money lent. In the assessment year 1968-69, an income of Rs. 5,100 was disclosed and in the assessment year 1970-71 an income of Rs. 5,300 was disclosed. The capital for this business of money-lending was cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re, added this amount of Rs. 24,500 to the assessee's income for the assessment year 1968-69 observing that in fact it would be proper to assess this whole amount protectively since the assessee was merely a minor and the funds utilised belonged to his father who was assessed by the ITO, A-ward, Indore. The assessment on the assessee was, thus, made on protective basis. In the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1970-71, a further gift of Rs. 4,950 was said to have been made to the assessee by Narsinghdas Mittal and since the ITO was of the opinion that Narsinghdas Mittal was not a man of sufficient means, he added this amount to the assessee's income. The assessee preferred appeals against the aforesaid assessment to the AAC ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been doing any business, etc., of his own out of which he could have earned any income. The ITO has himself held that the amounts are properly taxable in the hands of the father. So far as the father is concerned, we find that the ITO vide order dated 30-5-1974 (copy at page 41 of the paper book) accepted that the business in the name of the present assessee did not belong to the father Shri Kishan Mittal. Thus, these amounts have not been accepted by the revenue to belong to the father and if they belonged to the present assessee there was no escape from the conclusion that he must have received some gifts which provided his guardian with nucleus with which to start the business. 5. So far it has not been clarified under which section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....representative could not assign any acceptable reason how in the face of the ITO's observations mentioned above, the amount could be taxed in the hands of the present assessee. 7. Coming to the question of the genuineness of the gifts, it is important to mention that Narsinghdas Mittal died in the year 1978, Pannalal died in the year 1969 and Rampyaribai died in the year 1967. The later two donors were, therefore, not available for confirmation. Narsinghdas Mittal was, however, available when the ITO proceeded to make these assessments in 1974 but the orders passed by the ITO would show that he made no attempt to summon this person and examined him on oath. He has made very perfunctory observation that the donor was living with the asses....