INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs. SATISH KUMAR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Departmental appeal is directed against the order dated 12 -8 -86 passed by the CIT (A) for the asst. year 1980 -81. The ITO computed income from house property No. H -171, Ashok Vihar, Delhi at Rs. 10,580 and subjected it to tax in the hands of the assessed, an individual, under the head Income from other sources. The assessed's contention before the ITO was that he was not the owner of the property which was owned by his wife Smt. Asha Rani. The ITO has mentioned in the asst. order that in the case of Smt. Asha Rani the assessment for the asst. year 1979 - 80 was completed on 30 -3 -1982 wherein on the basis of the facts gathered and the investigation made, she has held to be the benamidar of her husband in respect of the income declared by her from the business of knitting and stitching and income from the aforesaid property. The assessed was asked by the ITO to give details regarding the acquisition and investment made in the house property. The facts stated in the asst. order in respect of the acquisition of the said property and the investment made are as follows :

(2.) FROM the above facts the ITO deduced that Smt. Asha Rani was the benamidar of her husband, namely, the assessed in respect of the investment made for acquisition of property No. H -171, Ashok Vihar, Delhi, as almost all the investments made came from the assessed. Thus the ITO was of the view that the income from the said property was assessable in the hands of the assessed and since and property has been acquired through an agreement to sell, income there from was assessed under the head Income from other sources.

(3.) THE assessed appealed to the CIT (A) who while disposing of the appeal also took into consideration the statement of Smt. Asha Rani recorded by the ITO as also the asst. order made in her case. He referred to the statement made by Smt. Asha Rani, according to which she had income from knitting. The statement of Smt. Asha Rani recorded on 16 -3 -82 has been reproduced by the CIT (A) in his impugned order. The CIT (A) concluded that the ITO failed to prove that the property in question actually belonged to the assessed and not to his wife in whose name it stood registered. Aggrieved, the Department has come up in appeal before the Tribunal.