P SOUNDARYA Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision petition has been filed against the judgment, dated August 19, 1996, in Criminal A. No. 248 of 1989, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madras, confirming the judgment, dated November 6, 1989, of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E. O. I., Egmore, Madras, in E. O. C. C. No. 136 of 1984.

(2.) THE revision petitioner, Mrs. P. Soundarya, is the sister of Kumari R. Jayapratha, a well known film actress in Telugu and Tamil movies, and is residing with her at door No. 1, Hindi Prachara Sabha Road, T. Nagar, Madras-17. In the course of the search made in pursuance of the action taken under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on February 17, 1983, a statement was recorded from the revision petitioner with regard to the purchase of the house bearing door No. 20, First Cross Street, Lake Area, Nungambakkam, Madras, on November 22, 1982, from one V. Seshamma. THE revision petitioner had stated that the said house was purchased for Rs. 2,40,000 by selling a part of her jewels and the jewels of her mother, Neelaveni, and grand-mother, Rajamma. THE revision petitioner could not disclose the details of such jewels and the sale thereof. On the same day, i.e., on February 17, 1983, the office premises of Hariharan and Co., chartered accountants, who were attending to the income-tax, matters of Kumari Jayapratha, was also searched under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act and, inter alia, a receipt, dated August 31, 1982, signed by Smt. V. Seshamma, acknowledging the receipt of advance amount towards a sale of the house bearing door No. 20, First Cross Street, Lake Area, Nungambakkam, Madras, to the revision petitioner and her mother, Smt. P. Neelaveni, for a sale consideration of Rs. 5,70,000 was seized. THE house of V. Dhinakar Reddy, the husband of V. Seshamma, was also searched on February 23, 1983, and the statement of Smt. V. Seshamma, was recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act, wherein she had stated to have sold the abovesaid house to the revision petitioner for a sum of Rs. 2,40,000. Smt. V. Seshamma had represented to the Department on March 30, 1983, that she had really sold her house for Rs. 5,70,000 to the revision petitioner though the sale consideration was mentioned in the sale deed as Rs. 2,40,000 at the request of the revision petitioner. She had also disclosed that the sum of Rs. 3,30,000 was not mentioned in the sale deed. A letter signed by Smt. V. Seshamma on March 30, 1983, confirming the sale consideration at Rs. 5,70,000 was also handed over to the Assistant Director of Inspection, Income-tax Department. Later, a sworn statement was also made by her to the abovesaid effect.

(3.) EXHIBIT D-1, dated March 31, 1983, is the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer, for the assessment year 1983-84, with regard to the revision petitioner in her individual capacity. EXHIBIT D-1 would disclose that the total income of the revision petitioner was determined under a protective basis at Rs. 6,75,000 without prejudice to the stand to be taken by Kumari Jayapratha, with regard to the demised property under consideration. A perusal of exhibit D-1 would disclose that the agreement made in connection with the income of the revision petitioner was only a protective basis assessment and not actual assessment. EXHIBIT D-2 is the assessment order of Kumari Jayapratha for the assessment year 1983-84, on November 17, 1986. A perusal of exhibit D-2 would disclose that the income-tax authority had come to the conclusion in the said assessment order that Kumari Jayapratha had a total expenditure of Rs. 6,75,000 from out of her income towards purchase of the demised property, including the sale consideration of Rs. 5,70,000, apart from the registration and stamp paper expenditure. It is also mentioned in the said assessment order that a protective assessment was made in the name of the revision petitioner herein for the assessment year 1983-84, inclusive of the sum of Rs. 6,75,000 as her income, without prejudice to the stand to be taken in the case of Kumari Jayapratha, as real owner of the demised property. Accordingly, it was mentioned in the said assessment order exhibit D-2 that Kumari Jayapratha is the real owner of the property. Based on the abovesaid contents in the assessment order, learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the sale consideration of Rs. 5,70,000 was paid only by Kumari Jayapratha ; that the revision petitioner is only a name lender and that therefore the entire sale transaction is a benami transaction.