1977 (6) TMI 34

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessee's name on 10th June, 1964 in the State Bank of Mysore, Hindpur branch. The assessee's explanation was that the deposit was made in his name on behalf of his mother Smt. Parvathamma and this represented a sum of money owned by her earlier and a letter from the mother was also filed in this regard. Further reference was also made to her written statement on 20th April,1971 owning the deposit as belonging to her. She had also stated that the said deposit was intended to be paid to her second son Y. Krishna Setty in connection with his foreign tour. It was further explained that the assessee's father was running a general business shop and owned agricultural lands fetching considerable income leaving some savings to him. It was further ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unsel Mr. Sarangan was almost on the similar lines as contended before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Officer, viz. that the mother was an income-tax assessee and she had intended the deposit for her second son's visit abroad and Sanna Thipaiah's statement showed that he had taken the amount from the mother of the assessee and returned to her which enabled the mother to put the same as a deposit in the assessee's name in order to advance her second son for the aforementioned foreign tour. He thus contended that there was no basis for any addition in this case. On the other hand, the departmental representative relied on the order of the lower authorities. 4. I have considered the rival submissions and have gon....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....his first daughter and above all he had not taken any amount for any other marriage in his family. In this context of the above, the Income-tax Officer was of the view that "it is strange that the party Sri Sanna Thippaiah should have taken only once and not afterwards when other marriages were celebrated and when money was required", and it was nothing but a story to help the assessee. It is thus clear that the explanation of Sanna Thippaiah had been mainly rejected on the ground that he had not taken any loan for the marriage of other daughters in his family. The Income-tax Officer's consideration of this part of the evidence against the assessee is not justified because invariably only persons who are considered to be men of means would ....