JUDGMENT : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the income from the trucks G.T.A. 3482 and G.T.B. 6426 was properly added to the assessee's income? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material before the Tribunal to hold that the assessee, and not the persons in whose names the aforesaid two trucks were registered, was the owner of the trucks ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have held that, as the Revenue authorities had failed to show that the funds for the purchase of the trucks came from tile assessee, the income from the said trucks could not be included in the assessee's income ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have held that the mere rejection of the statements made by the persons in whose names the trucks were registered, could not lead to the conclusion that the assessee was the owner of the trucks ? 5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material before the Tribunal to hold that the assessee had enjoyed the income from the trucks in question ? 6. Whether the Tribunal's finding that the assessee is the owner of the trucks and has enjoyed the income is based on conjectures, suspicions and surmises and is perverse ? 7. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has ignored relevant material and has taken into account irrelevant considerations in holding that the assessee is the owner of the trucks and has enjoyed the income therefrom ? 8. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was running illicit liquor business and earning income therefrom?" 2. Questions Nos. 1 to 7 are directly governed by our decision in the assessee's own case in I.T.R. No. 204 of 1986 (Chandulal J. Jaiswal v. CIT [1992] 195 ITR 635), which was in connection with the assessment for 1974-75 and which was disposed of by our judgment delivered today. The present reference arises out of the assessee's income-tax assessment for the assessment year 1972-73. The present reference arises out of the assessee's income-tax assessment for the assessment year 1972-73. Facts in the present reference are identical with the facts which obtained in I.T.R. No. 204 of 1986 (Chandulal J. Jaiswal v. CIT [1992] 195 ITR 635). We, therefore, do not consider it necessary to set them out. Following our decision in I.T.R. No. 204 of 1986 (Chandulal J. Jaiswal v. CIT [1992] 195 ITR 635), and for the reasons recorded therein, we answer question No. 1 in the negative and against the assessee, question No. 2 in the affirmative and against the assessee, question No. 3 in the negative and against the assessee, question No. 4 in the negative and against the assessee, question No. 5 in the affirmative and against the assessee, question No. 6 in the negative and against the assessee and question No. 7 in the negative and against the assessee. 3. So far as question No. 8 is concerned, the facts are as follows: 4. In the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1965-66, namely, Samvat Year 2020, the assessee was carrying on a business in French polish, thinner, eau-de-cologne, etc. It was, however, the assessee's case that he stopped carrying on this business from Samvat Year 2021 previous year relevant to the assessment year 1966-67. A search was conducted at the residential and business premises of the assessee as well as one Vasant S. Shah. It was found that Vasant Shah was manufacturing illicit liquor. Vasant Shah, in his statement, stated that the liquor brewed by him was handled by or sold to the assessee. The assessee denied this allegation. The Income-tax Officer, however, on appreciation of the evidence on record held that the assessee was deriving income from the business in illicit liquor and estimated the income from such business at Rs. 90,000, and made an addition thereof to the assessee's total income. In the appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Baroda ("the Commissioner" for short), upheld the Income-tax Officer's view that the assessee was deriving income from a business in illicit liquor. He estimated the turnover in this business at Rs. 6,00,000 and held that the estimate of income from that business at net figure of Rs. 90,000 estimated by the Income-tax Officer deserves to be upheld. The assessee, being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, went in appeal before the Tribunal. He estimated the turnover in this business at Rs. 6,00,000 and held that the estimate of income from that business at net figure of Rs. 90,000 estimated by the Income-tax Officer deserves to be upheld. The assessee, being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, went in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, observed as follows in paragraph 7 of its order at pages Nos. 6 and 7 : "7. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties, as well as perused the material already brought on record and are of the view that it is difficult to ascertain the real truth of the matter in the face of allegations and counter allegations made by the concerned parties and the stand taken by them at different stages and before different authorities. Keeping in mind the facts and circumstances obtaining in this case, as well as the fact that Shri Vasantlal S. Shah was rendering services to the assessee in this activity for a slice in the profit, it would be fair and reasonable to estimate the sales at Rs. 5 lakhs and adopt the net profit rate of 10%. The I.T.O. is, therefore, directed to modify the assessment accordingly." 5. It is clear from the observation made by the Tribunal that it had not come to a firm conclusion that the assessee was dealing in illicit liquor and that he had income from the business in illicit liquor. In fact, the Tribunal observed to the effect that it was difficult to ascertain the real truth of the matter. No estimate of income, alleged to have been derived from the business in illicit liquor, could have been made unless the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee had such business. The question of making an estimate of income would arise only if the conclusion was reached that the assessee was carrying on business in illicit liquor. The Tribunal not having come to such a conclusion, in our opinion, it could not have made an estimate of sales and adopted a rate of profit. We, therefore, fail to see as to how the Tribunal could have estimated the sales at Rs. 5,00,000 and adopted a net profit rate of 10 per cent. The Tribunal not having come to such a conclusion, in our opinion, it could not have made an estimate of sales and adopted a rate of profit. We, therefore, fail to see as to how the Tribunal could have estimated the sales at Rs. 5,00,000 and adopted a net profit rate of 10 per cent. Since the Tribunal was not able to come to a firm conclusion that the assessee had business in illicit liquor and that he derived income from such business, no income from such business could have been added to the assessee's total income. The direction given by the Tribunal to the Income-tax Officer to modify the assessment on the basis of the estimate of sales and rate of profit made by it cannot be upheld. We, therefore, answer question No. 8 referred to us in the negative and against the Revenue. Reference answered accordingly with no order as to costs.