TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1978 (8) TMI 42
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....losed sources for the assessment year 1959-60, Rs. 7,550 for the assessment year 1960-61 and Rs. 43,500 for the assessment year 1961-62. These additions made have been confirmed by the AAC and also by the Tribunal. Among the house properties the income from which have been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee, there are three items, viz., premises Nos. 699, 699/1 and 1148 at Devaraja Mohalla, Mysore. The assessee's husband died on September 5, 1943. It transpires that he executed a deed of settlement in respect of the premises bearing Nos. 699 and 699/1 in favour of the assessee as well as his sons, Krishnappa, Giriappa and Venugopal Naidu. The premises bearing No. 1148, had been purchased by him on May 25, 1943. In the assessment fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Tribunal also merely confirmed it without any discussion of the material facts bearing on the question. It is seen that the settlement as well as the purchase of the property bearing No. 1148 are evidenced by registered documents and had been produced before the ITO during the course of the assessment for the year 1958-59. Merely because the documents were not produced again in the subsequent years, the claim could not be rejected without calling for those documents from the assessee and considering the effect of the same. The assessment for each year is a self-contained one and there is no question of res judicata, merely because the claim is rejected in one year. If such a claim is raised in any subsequent year, it is bound to be cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....other-in-law and a dowry amount that had been received at the time of the marriage of her son and some other amounts received from certain parties were available for making the investments. It was also claimed that she had made savings between 1943 and 1948 and the same would amount to about Rs. 32,400. The ITO noticed that by 1958, the investments on house property had been made in a sum of Rs. 17,300 and, therefore, the claim that any cash left by the husband would be available was unbelievable assuming that her husband who was only an employee drawing Rs. 45 per month could have amassed such an amount of cash. No details were given in regard to jewels and to whom it was sold and when it had been sold. There was also no evidence about the....