R KANAKAMMAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the instance of the assessee, the following common question has been referred to us for our consideration for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 :

(2.) THE only link which the assessee was able to show was the fact that the assessee's husband was residing and working at Singapore. THE Income-tax Officer found that there was no evidence whatsoever placed before him to show that the money had been brought in from Singapore to the extent mentioned in the order of reference, either by normal banking channels or by any other channels. He observed in the course of his order that "the assessee has not produced any evidence to show that she brought in money from Singapore from out of above drawings". THE assessee had only filed a statement of the drawings by her husband in Singapore between the years 1968 to 1971. THE Income-tax Officer had called upon the assessee to file the statement of the drawings from the years 1964 to 1967 and had found that the drawings in those years though more than the drawings in between the years 1968 and 1971. it was not the case of the assessee that any part of those drawings had been remitted to India and that there was nothing at all to show that though the husband of the assessee was employed in Singapore, he had remitted some part of it to India.

(3.) THE assessee had placed reliance on a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated August 28, 1970, in which it is stated that in the absence of direct evidence regarding the transfer of money from abroad, the assessee's statement would be accepted, provided, the assessee produces adequate evidence to show that he has sufficient wealth in the country from which the money is claimed to have been repatriated, and there was evidence in the form of maintenance of bank accounts in the other country and copies of the assessment orders passed in the assessee's case by the authorities of that country, subject to the condition that the assessee/migrant will be required to prove that the amount brought into India can directly be linked with the funds which the assessee had possessed in that country.