The burden of proof is on the assessee to show that the item of receipt was not of an income nature. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the money standing in the name of the wife must be presumed to belong to her, and an assessee cannot be taxed in respect of the amount standing in the name of the wife.

1. The assessee in this case is Rai Bahadur S. N. Ganguli who owns two cinema houses in the town of Ranchi. He also is a partner in two firms, and holds a major part or shares in the United Motor Works, Ltd. He has invested money in several concerns, and owns Government securities and several house properties. For the assessment year 1947-43, Rai Bahadur S. N. Ganguli returned an income of Rs. 24,815/-. The Income-Tax Officer did not reject the account books produced by the assessee, but he added a sum of Rs. 15,000/-which was the amount of high, denomination notes encashed by the assessee on 19-1-1946, through the Ranchi Branch of the Bengal Central Bank, Ltd. The amount encashed was not mentioned in the books of account produced by the assessee. The Income-Tax Officer called upon the assessee to explain the source of the high, denomination notes. Not being satisfied with the explanation, the Income-Tax Officer treated the amount of Rs. 15,000/-as secreted profit of the assessee. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Commissioner; but the appeal was dismissed on 24-1-1949. A further appeal was taken by the assessee to the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal. At this stage, the assessees wife, Hemprabha Ganguli, filed an affidavit stating that a sum of Rs. 11,000 was encashed in her name on 19-1-1946, that this amount was her own property, and that she had an independent source of income apart from that of the assessee. This explanation was rejected by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, and the appeal was dismissed on the finding that the entire amount of Rs. 15,000/. was secreted income in the hands of the assessee.

2. The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal has formulated the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court :

"Whether there is any material to justify the assessment of Rs. 15,000.00 representing the value of High Denomination Notes or any part of it as the income of the Assessee?"

3. In the approach to this question, it is necessary to bear in mind that the amount of Rs. 15,000/. is made up of two amounts of Rs. 11,000.00 and Rs. 4,000/-, Rs. 11,000 teing the value of the high denomination notes encashed in the name of the assessees wife & Rs. 4,000 being the value of the high denomination notes encashed in the name of the assessee. As regards the amount of Rs. 4,000.00 which was the value of the high denomination notes encashed in the name of the assessee, we are of opinion that there was material to justify the action of the Income-tax authorities. In the first place, it has been found that the amount encashed finds no place in the books of account produced by the asses-see. It has been rightly pointed out by Mr. S. N. Dutt, who ably argued the case on behalf of the assessee, that the authorities have not disbelieved the books of account which the assessee produced. That circumstance, however, has no bearing on the question whether the amount of Rs. 4,000/-, which the assesses admittedly encashed on 19-1-1946, was secreted income.

The principle to be applied in a case of this description is well settled. When the assessee fails to prove positively the source and nature of a certain amount which he received in the account-ing year, the revenue authorities are entitled to draw an inference that the receipts are of an income nature, unless the assessee proves the source and nature of the particular receipt. The burden of proof in such a case is not upon the revenue authorities, but the burden of proof is upon the assessee to show that the item of the receipt was not of an income nature. This principle is supported by two authorities -- Jadunandan Sahu V/s. Commissioner of Income-Tax B & O, AIR 1949 Pat 215 (A) and -- G. M. Madappa V/s. Commr. of income-tax, Madras, A. I. R. 1949 Mad 246 (B). Applying this principle to the amount of Rs. 4,000/-, in the present case it is clear enough that the assessee has not furnished any explanation as to the source and nature of this sum of Rs. 4,000/-. The Income-ta