Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 2137 (ALL)

Commissioner of Income-tax v. Maiku Lal (HUF)

2004-10-28

PRAKASH KRISHNA, R.K.AGRAWAL

body2004
R. K. AGRAWAL, J. ( 1 ) THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, has referred the following question of law under section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", for opinion to this court: "whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting an addition of Rs. 1,54,236 from the income of the assessee-Hindu undivided family ?" ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows : the present reference relates to the assessment year 1975-76. The respondent is a Hindu undivided family. It has earned income from money-lending business and share income from a firm in the past up to the assessment year 1974-75. A search and seizure was conducted at the residential and business premises of the respondent on May 30/31, 1974. It may be mentioned here that the accounting period/previous year relevant to the assessment year is from October 27, 1973 to Diwali, 1974, thereby the date of search and survey operation falls in the assessment year 1975-76. Under the search operation ornaments of the total value of Rs. 1,76,736 were found a well. The karta, Maiku Lal denied its ownership at the time of search itself. Sri Ramesh chandra, a member of the Hindu undivided family, admitted that these ornaments belonged to him. Subsequently, in respect of some of the ornaments which were found in flask and jug, he denied his ownership. The Income-tax Officer treated the ornaments as belonging to the Hindu undivided family, the assessee at the hands of the respondent which was confirmed by the commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals ). However, in appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal had accepted the statement made by Sri Ramesh Chandra regarding ownership of the ornament and it had deleted the addition of Rs. 1,54,236. ( 3 ) WE have heard Sri Shambhoo Chopra, learned standing counsel for the Revenue. ( 4 ) THE Tribunal has accepted the statement given by Sri Ramesh Chandra regarding ownership of the ornaments and deleted addition of Rs. 1,54,236 which is based on appreciation of evidence and the materials available on the record. 1,54,236. ( 3 ) WE have heard Sri Shambhoo Chopra, learned standing counsel for the Revenue. ( 4 ) THE Tribunal has accepted the statement given by Sri Ramesh Chandra regarding ownership of the ornaments and deleted addition of Rs. 1,54,236 which is based on appreciation of evidence and the materials available on the record. It is always open to the Tribunal to accept or discard the statement and in the present case the Tribunal has given cogent reason for accepting the statement made and it cannot be said to suffer from any legal infirmity. We find that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are based on appreciation of evidence and the materials on record and cannot be said to suffer from any perversity. ( 5 ) IN this view of the matter, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i. e. , in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. However, there shall be no order as to costs. . .