JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - This is a reference u/s 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on the following question of law : "Whether or not, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 53,500 made under the head 'Income from undisclosed sources' on the ground that the money was not spent by the two sons in their individual capacity ?" 2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family having the father as karta. His two sons aged about 26 and 22 are the other members of the joint family. Two plots of land were purchased which stand in the names of the two sons jointly for a consideration of Rs. 53,500 during the assessment year. The Income Tax Officer was of the view that the consideration amount comes from joint family funds and source of income of the said amount is undisclosed. This is accepted by both the appellate authorities. 3. In the assessment proceedings one of the sons filed an affidavit that the land purchased belong to the two brothers. We are called upon to accept the affidavit to hold that ownership of the land being with junior members of the family, they have purchased it out of their own funds. Considering the affidavit, it was held : "It is reasonable to presume that the source of purchase of money has flown from the family funds." 4. Mr. S. N. Ratho, learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that there is no presumption in law that property standing in the name of individual members has been purchased from out of the joint, family funds. In this case, the two sons in whose names the property stands" have clearly asserted that they are solvent to the tune of the amount invested for purchase of the land and have also stated that they are the owners of the land. According to Mr. Ratho, these two statements taken together lead to the only reasonable inference that the properties have been purchased from out of their own funds and not out of the funds of the Hindu undivided family. 5. Mr. According to Mr. Ratho, these two statements taken together lead to the only reasonable inference that the properties have been purchased from out of their own funds and not out of the funds of the Hindu undivided family. 5. Mr. Ratho's second limb of argument is that in case it was found that the affidavits are not clear, the sons ought to have been examined to explain their own statements and without the same an inference that purchases were from joint family funds ought not to have been drawn. 6. The Income tax Officer is to find the income to assess it. If affidavits had been collected by the Income Tax Officer, he would have been obliged to give a chance to the assessee to explain the materials against him. When the assessee filed the affidavits of the sons, it was obligatory for it to file clear acceptable materials wherefrom only the inference could have been drawn that the two sons purchased the properties from their own funds. This fact was within their knowledge. Non-disclosure of fact which is within their knowledge makes those documents unacceptable. There being no other source for the sons, an inference that it is out of joint family funds cannot be said to be unreasonable. From such rinding, the obvious conclusion on the facts of this case is that the same is undisclosed income. 7. In view of the discussion above, the question is answered in the affirmative, against the assessee, that the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 53,500 under sale deeds as income from undisclosed sources on the ground that the money was not spent by the two sons in their individual capacity. There shall be no order as to costs. J. M. Mahapatra, J. 8. I agree.