Judgment G.C.Bharuka, J. 1. The writ and the reference applications being based on the same set of facts relating to the same petitioner are being disposed of by this common judgment. In the reference application, the following questions of law were called for by this court under Sec.256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act" only) : "(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances, of the case and also on the finding recorded by the Tribunal, the sum of Rs. 78,000 should be treated as income ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the mere expenditure of a sum of Rs. 78,000 by the assessee can be taxed under Sec. 69 of the Act on the ground that receipt of money remained unexplained by the assessee ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal is vitiated on account of irrelevant matters?" 2. The assessee is an individual. Her husband, Dr. J. Saran, is a medical practitioner. During the assessment year 1973-74, the assessee claims to have invested a sum of Rs. 1,62,000 in the construction of a house. On being asked to explain the source of the said investment, she filed her detailed explanation. According to that explanation, Rs. 78,000 was said to have been advanced by Dr. J. Saran out of the Hindu undivided family fund. On being examined by the Income-tax Officer, Dr. J. Saran disclosed that his Hindu undivided family was assessed to income-tax for five assessment years, i.e., 1968-69 to 1972-73, on the net income of Rs. 15,000 in each year out of a timber business and it was out of this income that the aforesaid loan of Rs. 78,000 was advanced to the assessee. On being questioned by the Income-tax Officer, Dr. J. Saran failed to give any details in respect of the said timber business nor any book of account was produced, rather it was admitted that the Hindu undivided family did not maintain any timber depot or stockyard. What was more fatal to the acceptability of the statement regarding carrying on of timber business was an affidavit, which was filed before the sales tax authorities wherein it was specifically stated that the Hindu undivided family had not carried on any timber business involving any sale or purchase of its own but had acted merely as a broker. What was more fatal to the acceptability of the statement regarding carrying on of timber business was an affidavit, which was filed before the sales tax authorities wherein it was specifically stated that the Hindu undivided family had not carried on any timber business involving any sale or purchase of its own but had acted merely as a broker. This statement before the sales tax authorities was possibly necessitated because admission of sale or purchase of timber would have attracted sales tax liability. Keeping in view the explanation of the assessee, the sum of Rs. 78,000 was added in the hands of the Hindu undivided family in a duly initiated proceeding under the Act against which the Hindu undivided family went in appeal and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner after discussing the facts of the case came to the conclusion that the Hindu undivided family could not and did not advance any money to the assessee. Accordingly, the said addition of Rs. 78,000 was deleted from the assessment of the Hindu undivided family. This finding attained its finality since no appeal was preferred to the Tribunal either by the Hindu undivided family or by the Department. 3. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, the Income-tax Officer added the said sum of Rs. 78,000 in the hands of the assessee under Sec. 69 of the Act as unexplained investment, which has been confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal also, applying itself to the facts and the materials available on the record, has recorded a finding to the following effect : "We confirm the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the loan was only from the undisclosed sources and, therefore, the same is maintained in the hands of Smt. Ashoka Saran." Section 69 of the Act reads as under : "Unexplained investment--Where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year, the assessee has made investment, which are not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the investment or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the value of the investments may be deemed to be the income of the assessee of such financial year." 4. In the present case, as per the assessees own case, she had made an investment of Rs. 1,62,000 during the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year and out of the said investment, the explanation regarding the source of Rs. 78,000 was not found to be satisfactory by the Tribunal and, therefore, in view of the fiction created under Sec. 69 of the Act, the amount was to be deemed as the income of the assessee of the financial year in question. 5. Mr. K.D. Chatterji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, also could not refer to any material relied upon by the Tribunal for arriving at the aforesaid findings of fact which can be said to be irrelevant and could vitiate the findings of the Tribunal arrived at. Possibly faced with the aforesaid situation, under legal advice, the petitioner has filed the present writ application challenging the very constitutional validity of Sec. 69 of the Act. Mr. Chatterji, learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to entry 82 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, which runs "Taxes on income other than agricultural income", has submitted that under the said legislative entry, tax can be levied by Parliament only on actual or real income and no tax can be levied on a deemed or fictional income as has been sought to be done under the statutory provision like Sec. 69 of the Act. His submission was that the legislative power has to take its colour from the field assigned to it and cannot be made dependent on the acts of the parties. In other words, what he intended to impress was that if a certain amount represents expenditure as a matter of fact, then merely because the person making such expenditure is unable to explain the source from which the said amount has been obtained or acquired, it cannot by itself confer legislative authority on Parliament to treat the expenditure as income in order to enrich the State exchequer. To substantiate his submissions and to demonstrate the true meaning and scope of the word "income", learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision in the case of CIT v. Shaw Wallace and Co. [1932] 2 Comp Cas 276; AIR 1932 PC 138, at page 140, and in the case of CIT V/s. Smt. P.K. Noorjehan [1980] 123 ITR 3 (Ker). 6. [1932] 2 Comp Cas 276; AIR 1932 PC 138, at page 140, and in the case of CIT V/s. Smt. P.K. Noorjehan [1980] 123 ITR 3 (Ker). 6. In my opinion, for deciding the issue involved in the case, it is not necessary to examine the extent of the meaning which the word "income" comprises within itself. It is now well-settled that the entries in the Lists are not powers but are only fields of legislation, and that the widest import and significance must be given to the language used by the makers of the Constitution in the various entries. So, entry 82 in the Union List should be read not only as authorising the imposition of a tax but also as authorising an enactment which prevents the tax imposed being evaded (refer to Balaji V/s. ITO [1961] 43 ITR 393 (SC)). 7. Now, coming to the present case, if the submission of Mr. Chatterji is accepted then even though, as found in the present case, the assessee has made an investment of Rs. 78,000 but the source of acquiring the same has remained unknown, if she cannot be subjected to tax by creating a legal fiction, it will be easy for anybody to keep making investments without letting the Department know about his income and paying tax thereon. It is bare common sense that if a person makes an investment in a particular financial year, then, the amount so invested must represent either his current income or his savings from past income or receipt by loan or otherwise from some other person. If such person fails to explain the source of investment, which can reasonably be accepted then the only irresistible conclusion can be a presumption that he has earned the said amount during the financial year in question. This is what has been done by the Legislature by creating a fiction under Sec. 69 of the Act and it is definitely a measure to prevent evasion of tax. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the plea of legislative incompetence, as raised by Mr. Chatterji, cannot be said to have any substance. Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed. In view of the discussions made above, questions Nos. 1 and 2 as referred to this court in the reference application are answered in the affirmative and question No. 3 in the negative. Chatterji, cannot be said to have any substance. Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed. In view of the discussions made above, questions Nos. 1 and 2 as referred to this court in the reference application are answered in the affirmative and question No. 3 in the negative. Thus, all the three questions are answered against the assessee and in favour of the Department. Costs are assessed at Rs. 500. Aftab Alam, J. 8 I agree.