COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SUJJAN SINGH CHADHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment of the Court was delivered by At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal (Delhi) has referred the following question, arising out of ITA No. 2150 (Delhi) of 1974 75, pertaining to the asst. year 1967 68, for the opinion of this Court :

(2.) THERE is no appearance on behalf of the assessee. We have, accordingly, heard Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, learned standing counsel for the Revenue.

(3.) THE issue raised is no longer res integra. In Jamnaprasad Kanhaiyalal vs. CIT (1981) 130 ITR 244, the Supreme Court, dealing with a similar question, has held that the legal fiction created by s. 24(3) of the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1965, was limited in its scope and could not be invoked in assessment proceedings relating to any person other than the person making the declaration under that Act so as to rule out the applicability of S. 68 of the Act. The Court has further observed that there is nothing in S. 24 of the said Act, which prevents the ITO, if he was not satisfied with the explanation of an assessee about the genuineness or source of an amount found credited in his books, in spite of its having already been made the subject matter of a declaration by the creditor and taxed under the scheme, from investigating the true nature and source of the credits. It is pertinent to note that in view of the aforenoted decision, the decision of this Court in Rattan Lal's case (1975) 98 ITR 681 (Mad) has since been overruled by the apex Court in ITO vs. Rattan Lal (1984) 145 ITR 183 (SC).