JUDGMENT 1. (Oral) - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, drew up the statement of the case for the opinion of this court on the following question : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in excluding the amount of Rs. 28,800 from the assessment of the assessee without recording a finding as to whom does this amount belong to ?" 2. The facts are not in dispute. The assessee in her return of income for the assessment year 1977-78 showed the income of Rs. 8,046. The assessment order was passed on March 31, 1980, under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, " the Act of 1961" ), on an income of Rs. 85,000. The assessee' s case was reopened for the assessment year 1977-78 and the fresh assessment order was made by adding an income of Rs. 27,320 being unexplained investment in house construction as income from undisclosed sources to the total income of Rs. 8,050 shown by the assessee. The assessee was, thus, assessed at the total income of Rs. 35,370 for the assessment year 1977-78. 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner deleted the addition of Rs. 27,320. In the second appeal before the Tribunal the Tribunal noticed that in view of the finding by the Assessing Officer that the assessee was not the owner of the investment, the amount of investment could not have been added to the assessee' s declared income. 4. Counsel for the Revenue would submit that without recording the categorical finding as to whom the amount of Rs. 27,320 belonged, the Tribunal was not justified in excluding the said amount. She relied upon the following judgments : (1) ITO v. Bachu Lal Kapoor (1966) 60 ITR 74 (SC) ; (2) Suresh Kumar Rawat v. CIT (1995) 216 ITR 137 (Raj) ; and (3) CIT v. Smt. Saraswati Devi (1995) 212 ITR 445 (Raj). 5. Counsel for the Revenue fairly admitted that the Income-tax Act, 1961, did not provide for specific provision for a protective assessment. However, according to her, a protective assessment is a recognised mode of assessment. 5. Counsel for the Revenue fairly admitted that the Income-tax Act, 1961, did not provide for specific provision for a protective assessment. However, according to her, a protective assessment is a recognised mode of assessment. The object of the protective assessment, she would submit as explained by the courts, being that the assessment is also made in the hands of some other person, and if such other person objects to the assessment or finally it is held that it is not liable for payment of tax on such income, then the Department must get the tax from the person in whose hands the protective assessment is made. That being the purpose, she contended that once the Tribunal found that the assessee was not in the owner of the investment, the specific finding ought to have been given with regard to the person which in the present case is the husband of the assessee that the said sum belonged to him. 6. In Bachu Lal Kapoor (1966) 60 ITR 74 the Supreme Court was concerned with the notice issued under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, to the karta of the Hindu undivided family. In that context while upholding the issuance of notice under section 34, the Supreme Court referred to the distinct assessable entity and held that so long as the Hindu undivided family existed the individual members thereof cannot be separately assessed in respect of its income and that while section 3 thereof confers an option on the Income-tax Officer to assess either the association of persons or the members of the association individually, no such option is conferred on him thereunder in the case of a Hindu undivided family. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bachu Lal Kapoor (1966) 60 ITR 74 has no application to the question raised before us. 7. The Division Bench of this court in the case of Suresh Kumar Rawat (1995) 216 ITR 137 , held that the assessment of the income on protective basis in the hands of the assessee was done but during the assessment it was found that the income belonged to the benami and the said finding given by the Tribunal did not suffer from any perversity. We hardly find relevance of the decision in Suresh Kumar Rawat (1995) 216 ITR 137 for decision by us in the present case. 8. We hardly find relevance of the decision in Suresh Kumar Rawat (1995) 216 ITR 137 for decision by us in the present case. 8. In the case of Smt. Saraswati Devi (1995) 212 ITR 445 , the Division Bench of this court explained the object of making the protective assessment. 9. In the present case there is a categorical finding by the Assessing Officer that the assessee was not the owner of the investment and that the assessee had really not earned the income of Rs. 27,320. However, the said income was added to the total income of the assessee by making protective assessment since in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, the said income belonged to the husband of the assessee. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner modified the assessment order but maintained the addition in part. On further appeal, the Tribunal set aside the addition by holding that when the Department itself has taken the stand that the investment did not belong to the assessee, that could not have been added to the income of the assessee. We wanted to know from counsel for the Revenue as well as the assessee with regard to the assessment of the assessee' s husband but both of them were not able to give any firm answer in that regard. Be that as it may, on the face of categorical and unequivocal finding that the assessee was not the owner of the investment and that as such had not really earned the income, deletion of the said amount by the Tribunal cannot be said to be unjustified. In our considered opinion, it was not necessary for the Tribunal to record the specific finding as to whom this amount belonged to. 10. We answer the question accordingly. 11. No costs. *******