COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SHAKUNTALA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THREE questions have been canvassed before us by learned Counsel for the Revenue. The first is with regard to the deletion by the Tribunal of an addition of Rs. 1,79,435, allegedly being unexplained deposits in the accounts of the assessee/respondent. According to the assessee, she had purchased two plots of land, one of which was sold in the year 1989 and the second in January, 1991. It is the second plot with which we are concerned; the sale consideration of Rs. 1,80,000 was received by cheque and after deduction of bank commission the aforementioned sum of Rs. 1,79,435 was credited to the assessee's account. The Tribunal has noted that declaration for the purpose of capital account, in Form 2B, has been made by the assessee on this transaction. The Tribunal was satisfied since the transaction was through banking channels. There was no justification for the said addition. Learned Counsel for the Revenue has laboured upon the fact that the documents of conveyance were not found in order.

(2.) THIS Court ought not to interfere in the findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal unless these are perverse in nature. [See K. Ravindranathan Natr v. CIT (2000) 164 CTR 498 (SC) : (2001) 1 SCC 135]. We find no perversity in the conclusion.

(3.) THIRDLY , learned Counsel for the Revenue has assailed the deletion by the Tribunal of an addition of R 2,00,000 also, being alleged as unexplained deposits in the bank account of the assessee. It is uncontrovertible that this amount had been shown in the return for asst. yr. 1996 -97, that is, prior to the issuance of notice under Section 158BC. The version of the assessee is that the plot was purchased on 16th Dec., 1991 for Rs. 1,95,000. According to learned Counsel for the Revenue, it is inconceivable that this property would have been sold on the very same year for a consideration of Rs. 2,00,000. All these monies have been transacted through banking channels. The gain of Rs. 5,000 has been shown in the return for asst. yr. 1996 -97. Moreover, the Tribunal took note of the fact that the address and particulars of the purchaser had been furnished by the assessee but the AO made no inquiries. As in the other two cases the controversy centres around the questions of fact. We find no error in the order of the Tribunal on the third ground also.