CIT Vs. MAHIM UDMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) All the I.T.Rs. are disposed of by this common judgment as the dispute is common. It relates to the levy of tax on certain incomes from house property. Assessee was assessed to tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). Assessing Officer was of the view that assessee derived property income from the building let out on rent treating the income to be from asset owned by the assessee. Assessing Officer held that assessee had purchased a property for consideration of Rs.80,000/- in the names of Sri. K.P. Abdul Rahiman, Sri. K. Abdulla Kunhi and Sri. K.P. Abdulla. After purchasing the property in their names, assessee constructed a compound wall at an estimated cost of Rs.40,000/-. Assessee took the stand that he had nothing to do with either the purchase of the property or construction of compound wall. This plea was not accepted. A sum of Rs.40,000/- was added to the income of the assessee as income from undisclosed sources for the assessment year 1972-73 relating to investment in construction of boundary wall. The rental income was added and tax was levied for rest of the years involved, that is; 1973-74, 1976-77 to 1979-80 and 1981-82 to 1983-84. So far as the assessment year 1972-73 is concerned, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short 'the Tribunal') observed that the Revenue have failed to establish the property in question belonged to the assessee, disbelieving the stand of benami purchase as taken by revenue. In view of the finding recorded in the assessment year 1972-73, in subsequent periods the rental income included in the assessable income of the assessee was directed to be deleted. On the basis of the direction given by this Court in several Original Petitions under S.256(2) of the Act, the following common question has been referred for opinion:-

(3.) According to learned counsel for the Revenue, Tribunal failed to appreciate the factual aspects in their proper perspective and the conclusions are perverse. Assessee's stand is that question of benami is one of facts, giving rise to no question of law.