BALJEET JOLLY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 256 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act'). In relation to miscellaneous application filed under Section 254 (2) of the Act in ITA No. 1439/Del/89 relating to assessment year 1985-86, the Income-tax Appellant Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C' (in short the 'Tribunal') held that there was no mistake apparent on the face of the record in relation to the addition of unexplained investments to the extent of Rs. 6.00 lakhs.

(2.) In the application filed under Section 254(2) of the Act, assessee had taken the stand that the Tribunal's conclusion were not in accordance with the facts on record. It was stated that the total amount spent by the assessee on the construction of house was Rs. 6.92 lakhs of which she spent Rs. 2,85,600.00 in the assessment year 1984-85, and the balance Rs. 4,06,400.00 were spent in the previous year relevant to assessment year 1985-86. In explaining the sources the assessee had stated that Rs. 6.00 lakhs were received by her from Laxmi Chand Bagaji. The amount which was received in 1983 was shown in the balance sheet as a liability. Assessee's stand was that Tribunal wrongly proceeded by treating the balance sheet as books of accounts, though the fact remained that the assessee did not maintain any books of accounts. The other mistake that was committed by the Tribunal, according to the assessee that the joint account in which deposit of Rs. 6.00 lakhs was made in 1983 was both of the assessee and her husband. It is normal for any husband and wife to maintain their joint account. In these circumstances, assessee had stated that it was credited to her bank account in 1983. The submission that since the credit appeared in the books of the bank in 1983, and it was also established that the amount was received in 1983, merely for the reason that the amount was shown in the Balance Sheet relating to the assessment year in question, a different conclusion was not available to be taken and the Tribunal was in error in treating as if the credit appeared in the books in the year under question. Further it was stated that the assessee had not been granted opportunity in regard to manner of utilisation of the amount in the construction. Tribunal on consideration of the stand of the assessee and its finding recorded in the original order in appeal came to the conclusion that a case for rectification under Section 254(2) was not made out.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the following nine questions which have been proposed clearly show that questions of law are involved and they arise out of the order of the Tribunal passed in respect of the miscellaneous application:-