Law:

Section:

Section 69 of the income-tax act, 1961 - Unexplained investments R made on 9-06-1963 a will bequeathing cash and ornaments to her son BK R died on 10-11-1963 and BK introduced as capital Rs. 86,907 in his books on 28-11-1963 Assessment year 1964-65 ITO added in assessment of legal heir CK, entire capital amount as income under section 69 AAC deleted entire addition while tribunal sustained addition of only Rs. 35,000 Whether tribunal justified in said deletion of addition - Held, on facts, no Facts R made on 9-06-1963 a will bequeathing her cash and ornaments to her son BK. She died on 10-11-1963. On 28-11-1963, relevant to the assessment year 1964-65, BK. introduced in his books a capital of Rs. 86,907. In response to a notice issued under section 148, CK, as son and legal representative of BK, filed a nil return. The source of the said capital was attributed to cash of Rs. 73,000 and silver coins worth Rs. 13,907 out of the estate of R, which had been determined in their estate duty assessment at Rs. 1,49,000. The ITO, however, added the entire capital amount as income from undisclosed sources under section 69. In appeal, the AAC quashed the assessment, after accepting the genuineness of the will and holding, on the basis of her estate duty assessment, that R had the aforesaid cash, apart from jewellery and silver coins. In the appeal by the department, the Tribunal held that their was no evidence to satisfactorily explain the nature of the disputed amount. However, looking to the family possessions aggregating Rs. 7 lakhs in the remote past, the Tribunal accepted the explanations qua jewellery and silver coins in toto but, in respect of cash, an amount of Rs. 35,000 only was accepted and the balance of Rs. 38,000 was upheld as unexplained investment. On reference : Held 1. The estimate by the Tribunal of unexplained investment was based purely on surmises and conjuctures. On the facts found and accepted, the Tribunal should have accepted the assessee's explanation for the entire property claimed to have been left by R forming the source of the said capital. 2. The assessee had properly discharged the onus of proof and the impugned addition was, accordingly,…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492