1978 (6) TMI 88

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ar died on 6th March, 1960. On 4th Sept., 1961 the legal heirs of Sundaram Chettiar, namely, Mrs. Saraswathi Ammal and others mortgaged of the same date for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000 to discharge the antecedent debts of Sundaram Chettiar in favour of Shri. M.A. Ethirajulu Naidu, the father-in-law of the assessee. The above property was brought to Court auction on 17th March, 1966. One Mr. Lingiah Naidu, stated to be a family friend and tuition master of the assessee was successful bidder of the said, property for Rs. 3,100 subject to the discharge of the above mortgage for Rs. 1,20,000 plus interest and also the prior charge of Rs. 10,000. The property was thus knocked down in favour of Lingiah Naidu. Meanwhile the validity of the above Mortgag....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Naidu on her behalf. It was thus stated that the assessee became the absolute owner of the property and the compromise had become final. 2. In making the assessments of the assessee for two asst. yrs. 1973-74 and 1974-75 the ITO held that the real owner of the above property was not the assessee, but was the assessee's father-in-law, Shri R.A. Ethirajulu Naidu. However, as a protective measure he assessed the income from the said property in the hands of the assessee. On appeal the AAC held that this was a closely knit family with control flowing from Ethirajulu Naidu and therefore it has to be held that he had retained the property and had issued instructions to purchase it through the agency of a close associate in the form of Lingiah ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....income tax assessments made on the assessee. For example for the asst. yr. 1966-67 it was seen that for the relevant year ending, i.e., 31st March, 1966, the assessee was in receipt of property income of Rs. 4,370. It is stated that the assessee was getting rental income in prior years also. She was married in July, 1965. We have, therefore, no hesitation in accepting the assessee's claim that a sum of Rs. 3,100 was available with her for purchasing the above property through Shri Lingiah Naidu in the Court auction. The assessee has further pleaded that Shri Lingiah Naidu had been collecting the rents from this property on behalf of the assessee and paid over the same to her, that Shri Lingiah Naidu had also executed an agreement dt. 22nd S....