COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. NIRMAL ANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under S. 256(2) of the IT Act, ('the Act'), the Revenue seeks a direction to the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following questions, stated to be one of law, arising out of RA No. 374/Del/1997 in respect of asst. year 1986 -87, for the opinion of this Court :

(2.) THE assessee, an individual, was assessed to income -tax in respect of the relevant assessment year on a total income of Rs. 4,05,520 as against the returned income of Rs. 2,69,740. However, the CIT, after examining the assessment record, came to the conclusion that the said assessment was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue inasmuch as : (i) the deduction on account of house tax, pertaining to the earlier years but paid during the year, was wrongly allowed by the AO because the income from immovable property was not assessed under the head 'Income from house property' as the assessee was not legal owner thereof; (ii) the assessee had not disclosed interest income on the amounts lying deposited in her compulsory deposit account; and (iii) though the assessee had made disclosure under the Amnesty Scheme in respect of the wealth, no corresponding disclosure was made under the Act. He, accordingly, set aside the assessment and directed the AO to make a fresh assessment.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal to the Tribunal. While setting aside the said order, the Tribunal observed that insofar as the question of allowability of house tax and disclosure of interest earned on compulsory deposit account was concerned, it was clear from the record that in the past amount of interest was brought to tax on receipt basis and the deduction in respect of the house tax was allowed after due application of mind by the AO. As regards the issue relating to the source of acquisition of jewellery, declared under the Amnesty Scheme, the Tribunal held that there was not material on record to show that the jewellery was acquired in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration and not in the year as mentioned by the assessee in her declaration under the Amnesty Scheme and, therefore, in the absence of any clear finding that income on account of unexplained investment was assessable in the relevant assessment year, it could not be said that the assessment order was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.