COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. ISHWAR DASS SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIVE questions have been proposed in this reference application under S. 256(2). We have examined the questions, heard the learned counsel and also examined the order of the Tribunal rejecting the petition under S. 256 (1) as well as the appellate order out of which the questions of law are stated to have arisen.

(2.) WE are of the view that question No. 1 is a question of fact. As far as question No. 2 is concerned, the Tribunal has held it to be covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 24 CTR (SC) 358 : (1980) 131 ITR 597 (SC). Therefore, it need not be referred, However, learned counsel urged that this could be covered by reference to S. 52(1) of the It Act, 1961. We are unable to accept that his was the view of the ITO at any stage. So, this question appears to be academic.

(3.) TURNING now to the last question regarding half interest on bank deposits, we think the answer to the question is self -evident. For one thing, the bank deposits were in the joint names of husband and wife and there is no material on record to show who earned the money which was deposited, nor is there any material to show that the money belonged more to the husband than to the wife. Furthermore, the wife has been assessed on half the interest at least in one year in her own assessment and she is admittedly owner of half the house which is the subject -matter of questions Nos. 1 and 2 above. We, therefore, think that no question of law arises. The application is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 250.