C.I.T. - I, Kolkata v. Shyam Sunder Agarwal - 2015-LL-0402-2

Citation	2015-LL-0402-2
Appellant Name	C.I.T. - I, Kolkata
Respondent Name	Shyam Sunder Agarwal
Court	HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	02/04/2015
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	real owner • benami
Bot Summary:	The additions made by the assessing officer were deleted by the CIT. The revenue went in appeal which was dismissed by the Tribunal holding, inter alia, as follows : We have gone through the copies of the letter for adjustment of FDs against the assessee s demand and find that the A.O. collected the money through the CIT s P.D Account and there is no consent either by the company or by the assessee for such adjustment. It is clear that there is no evidence or material on record to prove that the assessee or his family members had in any way derived any monetory benefit from the investment in the F.D.s in the name of various companies. It is well settled that apparent 2 is real unless contrary is proved. It is also well settled that the burden of showing that a particular transaction is benami and the owner is not the real owner always rests on the person ascertaining it to be so and this burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence on a definite character which would either directly prove the fact of benami or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising an inference of that fact. In the present case we find that there is no legal evidence of a definite character which could either directly prove that the F.D.s standing in the name of the companies are held by the assessee benami and the real owner is not the four companies but the assessee. It is this order which is under challenge in this appeal. We have perused the order and find the view taken by the learned Tribunal is plausible view.

ORDER SHEET ITA 61 OF 2004 IN HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE C.I.T. - I KOLKATA Versus SHYAM SUNDER AGARWAL BEFORE: Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 2nd April, 2015. For Appellant : Mr.R.K.Chowdhury,Advocate For Respondent/assessee : Mr.S.Bagchi,Advocate Mr.G.R.Sharma,Advocate Court : appeal has not yet been admitted although presented on 6th February, 2004. appellant did not take any steps. additions made by assessing officer were deleted by CIT (Appeals). revenue went in appeal which was dismissed by Tribunal holding, inter alia, as follows : We have gone through copies of letter for adjustment of FDs against assessee s demand and find that A.O. collected money through CIT s P.D Account and there is no consent either by company or by assessee for such adjustment. It is, therefore, clear that there is no evidence or material on record to prove that assessee or his family members had in any way derived any monetory benefit from investment in F.D.s in name of various companies. It is well settled that apparent 2 is real unless contrary is proved. It is also well settled that burden of showing that particular transaction is benami and owner is not real owner always rests on person ascertaining it to be so and this burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence on definite character which would either directly prove fact of benami or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising inference of that fact. In present case we find that there is no legal evidence of definite character which could either directly prove that F.D.s standing in name of companies are held by assessee benami and real owner is not four companies but assessee. department has not been able to discharge burden lay upon it. It is this order which is under challenge in this appeal. Mr.Chowdhury, learned advocate for appellant is unable to tell us as to why order under challenge is wrong. We have perused order and find view taken by learned Tribunal is plausible view. We, therefore, refuse to admit appeal which is accordingly dismissed. (GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, J.) (ARINDAM SINHA, J.) ssaha AR(CR) C.I.T. - I, Kolkata v. Shyam Sunder Agarwal

Metadata

Judgment