Law:

Section:

Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investments - As a result of partial partition in parent joint family, 'B' became Karta of assessee HUF - Certain amount was deposited in fixed deposit with bank in name of 'B' - Amount stated to come out of amount disclosed by bigger HUF before Income-tax Investigation Commission and out of withdrawals made by bigger HUF - On basis of Commissioners report, it was found that amount deposited in name of 'B' did not figure any where in calculation made by authorized official - Also, there was no evidence to show that amount in question remained unspent during period of withdrawal and deposit - 'B' had never asserted that he had deposited amount from his individual income - Whether on facts amount in question represented unexplained income and was assessable in hands of assessee - HUF - Held, yes FACTS There was a partial partition in the parent joint family in 1943 by virtue of which movable assets of the parent joint family were partitioned between the aforesaid four brothers, namely, 'D', 'K', 'B' and 'J', who became kartas of their respective smaller joint families. The petitioner assessee was a HUF of which 'B' was the karta. An amount of Rs 2,77,471 was deposited with a bank in fixed deposit in the name of 'B' on 19-1-1951. 'B' was asked to explain the source of the deposit. The case of the assessee before the ITO was that the amount in question was fully covered by the disclosure made by 'D' before the Income-tax Investigation Commission in as much as it was included in the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs shown under the head 'Miscellaneous' and which matter was concluded by their report. It was also argued that this deposit was covered by the receipts of cash or other funds amounting to Rs. 8,86,738 by the 'D' between 20-6-1947, and 24-3-1948. On appeal, the AAC held that the scrutiny of the report of the Commission showed that the undisclosed income of the 'D' of which the assessee formed part was arrived at and there was nowhere any indication that that deposit of Rs. 2,77,471 made in name of 'B' was included in that sum. The AAC also took the view that in the absence of any evidence to show that the money in…

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