MOHINDROO O N Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In compliance with the direction given by this court under Sec. 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act "), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (hereinafter called " the Tribunal "), has referred the following two questions to this court:

(2.) Whether there was material on which the Appellate Tribunal could hold that towards the sum of Rs. 20,000 being the cost price of the property No. 1710 -11, Partap Street, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, funds to the extent of Rs. 12,000 were provided by the assessed and that three -fifths of the income from the property was, Therefore, assessable in the hands of the assessed under Sec. 64(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? "

(3.) The findings of the Tribunal with regard to the ownership of the shoe business are not the subject -matter of the present reference, and these findings have become final so far as the assessment year under reference is concerned. We have, Therefore, to proceed on the basis that the shoe business belonged to the assessed himself and not to his wife. It is on the basis of this finding that the Tribunal has given the further finding that the amount of Rs 12,000 was paid to the assessed's wife by her father by way of consideration for the assessed agreeing to discontinue the use of the name of Baluja for his shoe business. The contention of the assessed is that even on the basis that the shoe business belonged to him, there was no justification for the finding of the Tribunal that consideration for the amount of Rs. 12,000 proceeded from the assessed or that the title to this amount vested with the assessed. It is the assessed's contention that this finding is not supported by the evidence placed before the Tribunal. The finding of the Tribunal is in the nature of a finding of fact and it is well settled that this court is bound by such findings and cannot interfere with them except under special circumstances. These special circumstances have been explained by the Supreme Court in a number of cases, the latest being the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. : [1973]87ITR370(SC) ., in which the earlier cases have been considered and the position has been re -stated in the following terms: