TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (4) TMI 47
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material to justify the assessment of the sum of Rs. 29,000 as the income of the assessee ? (2) If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether the interest )Income of Rs. 4,275, Rs. 4,670 and Rs. 3,713 was rightly assessed in the hands of the assessee for the assessment years 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66, respectively ? " The assessee, who is an individual, derived share income from two registered firms and had also interest income. The relevant assessment years are from 1963-64 to 1965-66. The assessee was married on 8th August, 1962, and the ITO found that his wife, Smt. Meena Hariram, carried on money-lending business in which she claimed to have invested ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ril, 1962, respectively. Thus, within a span of a week from 1st April, 1962, to 7th April, 1,962, a sum of Rs. 24,500 is said to have been deposited by the wife. Relevant entries in the books of account of the wife were also produced. The AAC found that the alleged deposits were with persons who were relatives of the wife and that the returns for the four years filed by the assessee's wife were filed at the instance of the husband and that the relatives must have obliged the assessee's wife by making entries in books and passing receipts and it was, therefore, not possible to believe that the wife would save an amount of Rs. 29,000 and keep the same with her cousin sister without investing anywhere or keeping it in a bank. He farther consid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Tribunal found that " there was plenty of material to show that the amount alleged to be the income of the assessee's wife was in fact the amount belonging to the assessee and was, therefore, rightly assessed in the assessee's hands ". With these observations the appeal came to be dismissed. The two questions reproduced above are said to arise out of the above order of the Tribunal. Mr. Munim, appearing on behalf of the assessee, has contended that the burden to show that the amount of Rs. 29,000 in respect of income from which the wife has filed the income-tax returns belongs to the assessee, lies on the department and there was no material before the income-tax authorities to substantiate the case of the department. Now, the orders o....