1990 (1) TMI 58

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e office of his arrack business at Kazhakootam. It was contended that the residence belongs to his daughter. The assessee was not there and the daughter is also engaged in business earning income therefrom. Therefore, the daughter claimed not only the amount of Rs. 85,000 but also Rs. 7,500 as her income. It is noted by the Income-tax Officer that the assessee normally resides along with his only daughter, Smt. Indira Rani, at Sreenilayam, Trivandrum. A room in the upstairs of that building is kept under lock and key by the assessee for his own purpose. The sum of Rs. 85,000 was seized from this room. A notice under section 132(5) was served on the assessee on March 15, 1985, and he took more than three months to file an explanation as to t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lish ownership before that date. The assessee's son-in-law, the husband of Smt, Indira Rani, who is Professor in the Medical College, Trivandrum, had admitted at the time of search that the room from which the amount was seized was the bedroom of the petitioner which was kept and locked by him. In that view of the matter, the second respondent also found that the order of the Income-tax Officer treating the total of the two amounts aggregating to Rs. 92,500 as the income of the assessee is correct. Counsel for the petitioner urged before me that in so far as the amount seized from the residence of the assessee's daughter is concerned, section 132(4A) of the Income-tax Act will apply to presume that the amount belongs to the assessee's da....