Commissioner of Income Tax vs S.P. Arunachalam

R. Jayasimha Babu, J.—The questions referred to us at the instance of the Revenue are :

(1) Whether the Appellate Tribunal''s deletion of the addition of Rs. 1,57,000 made towards unexplained investment is sustainable in law and on

the facts ?

(2) Whether the Tribunal has misdirected itself in law and on the facts in coming to the conclusion that the addition of Rs. 1,57,000 should be

deleted and that conclusion is not supported by materials ?

(3) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 20,000 invested in the name of the wife of the assessee by accepting the

amnesty return filed by the wife of the assessee subsequent to the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed on March 25, 1986

?

The assessment year is 1982-83.

So far as the first two questions are concerned, the Tribunal has held that the assessee''s undisclosed income has been assessed on a settlement

basis and it was neither possible nor reasonable to assume that the assessee had anything more than that invested in his sons'' names. It was also

found that the assessee had agricultural income and savings. The Tribunal has concluded that in the totality of the circumstances, the investments

made by the assessee came out of his share of profits from the firm which had since been assessed and his own agricultural income and savings

therefrom and there was no other unexplained source for investment.

These findings of the Tribunal are findings of the fact. There is no scope for interfering with the same. Questions Nos. 1 and 2 are, therefore,

answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

As regards question No. 3, the Tribunal has observed that the sum of Rs. 20,000 had been assessed in the hands of the wife and that there was

no evidence at all to show that the amount invested came from the asses-see. In the absence of any evidence to show that the amount came from

the assessee, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no justification for this addition.

Counsellor the Revenue submitted that having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jamnaprasad Kanhaiyalal Vs.

Commissioner of Income Tax, M.P., Bhopal, wherein it was held that notwithstanding an assessment made under the voluntary disclosure scheme

it is still open to the Revenue to examine the question as to the person to whom it really belongs, that the assessment made in the hands of the wife

did not preclude the enquiry into the ownership of that income. The question herein, is not ""whether the enquiry can be made"". Whether there was

any material to sustain the Income Tax Officer''s conclusion that this belonged to the assessee. The Tribunal has found that there was no such

material. Our answer to the third question is, therefore, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.