Rm.N.S. Sinnaswami Pillai vs The Commissioner of Income Tax

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.—For the year 1939-40, the assessee returned an income of Rs. 1,604-0-6 which had been arrived at after

taking into account an alleged loss of Rs. 176-10-6 in respect of his money-lending business. In arriving at the figure of Rs. 176-10-6. the assessee

deducted two sums, Rs. 511-12-6 and Rs. 808-4-6, said to have been paid to his two wives, Srirangammal and Kaveri Ammal, respectively. The

Income Tax Officer allowed a deduction in respect of the amount paid to Srirangammal, but refused to allow a deduction in respect of Rs. 808-4-

6 paid to Kaveri Animal. the senior wife. The assessee married Kaveri Ammal some years before 1922, when an account in her name was opened

in the assessee''s books. From time to time moneys were paid into this account and interest was allowed on the balance in her favour. Section 16

(3) (a) (iii) provides that in computing the total income of an individual for the purpose of assessment there shall be included so much of the income

of a wife as arises directly or indirectly from assets transferred directly or indirectly to her by the husband, otherwise than for adequate

consideration or in connection with an agreement to live apart. This provision was inserted in Section 16 by the Indian Income Tax Amendment

Act, 1937. Up to the time the, amendment was made the Incomes-tax authorities were content to treat the moneys standing in Kaveri Ammal''s

account in the assessee''s books as her own moneys, but the amendment of the Act altered the position very materially. If these moneys had been

received by the wife from her husband otherwise than for adequate consideration, the interest earned thereon became for the purposes of the

Income Tax Act part of the husband''s income.

The Income Tax authorities gave the assessee an opportunity of proving that the moneys were her own and had not come from him in a manner

which would attract Section 16 (3) (a). (iii), but beyond stating that the moneys represented his wife''s stridhanam the assessee took no steps. Two

of the sums appearing in the account admittedly represent gifts from him. When the case was before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of

Income Tax, the assessee stated that he had no evidence to prove that the moneys in the account represented sums received from her parents and

not moneys set apart by the assessee in her name. . As the Assistant Commissioner refused to interfere with the order of the Income Tax Officer,

the assessee applied to the Commissioner to state a case to this Court on certain questions which he regarded as being questions of law.

On the 10th May, 1940, the Commissioner wrote to the assessee pointing out that neither the Income Tax Officer, nor the Appellate Assistant

Commissioner, questioned the statement that he had given moneys to his wife or that she had become the absolute owner of the moneys so given

but the reason for including interest thereon in the assessment made on him was that under the law as it stood the interest. was to be treated as his

income for the purpose of Income Tax and reference was made to the amendment of Section 16 by the Amending Act of 1937. The letter

concluded:

Your application for a reference to the High Court is presumably based on a misapprehension of the law on the subject. Will you please let me

know whether in the light of the explanation now-given you wish to press the application for a reference to the High Court

In reply to this letter the assessee wrote to the Commissioner on the 24th May, through his advocate taking up the position that gifts by a husband

to his wife constitute the wife''s stridhanam property and the income from such moneys was not taxable. In the course of this letter the assessee''s

advocate observed:

According to my client''s ease, the amounts consisted of various gifts by the husband to the wife on the occasion of the marriage and on other

auspicious occasions and also those given by the parents and other relations which were all invested with several inums and they were collected

and realised and constituted into a single fund in the year 1922. Under the circumstances it is wholly ultra vires and illegal to disallow the deduction

of interest this year contrary to what has been going on consistently and uniformly from 1922 onwards.

On the 25th June, the Commissioner wrote to the assessee''s advocate with reference to his letter of the 24th May. The Commissioner asked the

assessee to produce such evidence as he could to prove that the amount not admitted to have been received by the assessee''s wife from himself

had actually been received from her parents or other relations as alleged. On the 3rd July, the assessee''s advocate replied stating that the

Commissioner would appreciate that on the construction placed by him on the section and its operation ""the question now sought to be clarified by

you by production of evidence does not arise.

The assessee took no steps to adduce evidence,in support of his contention that his wife had received some of the moneys standing in her

account in his books from her parents or other relations. Therefore the question which the Court is now called upon to decide is whether there are

materials on the record on which the Income Tax Officer could lawfully treat the Rs. 808 as representing interest on assets transferred by the

assessee to his wife otherwise than for adequate consideration.

The position is this. The assessee has admitted that some of the moneys appearing in that account came from him and he has made no efforts to

prove that some of the sums have come from other sources. In these circumstances it is impossible for the assessee to contend that there is no

material on the record from which the Income Tax Officer could draw his conclusion. In fact, until the case came into this Court the assessee''s

contentions were based on a misconception of the law and it was only at the last moment that he raised the question which is now under reference.,

It follows that we are of the opinion that the question referred should be answered in the affirmative, but before concluding we consider it

necessary to deal with a statement made by the Commissioner to the effect that the natural presumption in the case of the assets of a married Hindu

lady is that they are transferred to her by her husband out of love or affection. We do not agree that there is any such presumption. It is not an

uncommon thing for a husband to put money in the name of his wife without ever intending to give it to her. We do not suggest that any moneys

were put in the name of the assessee''s wife with ulterior motive, but it was incumbent upon him to show their source and this he has not done apart

from his admission that some of them represented gifts from him.

As the assessee has failed he must pay the Commissioner''s-costs, Rs. 250.