VISALAKSHI GANDHI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, in pursuance of the directions of this court has stated a case and referred the following questions of law in relation to the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1985-86.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for the disposal of the tax case reference are as under : THE assessee is the wife of a senior advocate practising in this court. THEre were three assessments made, one on the assessee's husband in his individual capacity, another in the name of the assessee's husband as karta of the joint family and the third on the assessee. THE assessments were made consequent to a search in the residential premises of the assessee and her husband in the year 1986 and the question that arose in all assessment proceedings was regarding the assessability of a sum of Rs. 85,000 which represents the money advanced on a promissory note standing in the name of the assessee, Mrs. Visalakshi Gandhi, and in whose hands the same has to be assessed. THE assessment on the assessee's husband was made on regular basis including the said sum in his assessment and other two assessments, one on the husband of the assessee as karta of the Hindu undivided family and the other on the assessee, were made including the same amount on a protective basis. All the three assessees preferred separate appeals before the appellate authority, viz., Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), and the Commissioner of Income-tax, respectively. In the appeal preferred by the Hindu undivided family, the case of the Hindu undivided family was that the said sum had come out of agricultural income of the Hindu undivided family and it was accepted by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the other two appeals were decided in the light of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) in the case of the Hindu undivided family.

(3.) THE expression, "mistake apparent from the record" has been the subject matter of several decisions of the Supreme Court and it is well settled that for a "mistake apparent from the record" it must not involve a detailed inquiry and where more than one plausible view is possible, it cannot be regarded as a mistake apparent from the record. We are of the view that the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that the Hindu undivided family did not give details regarding the details or the nature of crops or the fact that the extent of income shown against the extent of the lands appeared to be disproportionate does not give rise to a "mistake apparent from the record" as more than one view is possible. It is true that we are not concerned with the correctness of the earlier order of the Appellate Tribunal, nor are we concerned with the reasoning given by the Appellate Tribunal for the conclusion it arrived at earlier as we are not sitting either in appeal or considering a reference against the earlier order of the Appellate Tribunal,