R DHARMICHAND KOTHARI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOLLOWING are the questions of law referred to this Court under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act:

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the assessee submits that the assessee is not pressing the fifth question of law. He has also made an endorsement to that effect.

(3.) AS regards the bogus credits in the names of Shri.Kapoorchand and Smt.Kiran, wife of Kapoorchand, at the time of enquiry, the said Kapoorchand admitted that the money advanced by him in his name and his wife's name actually belonged to the assessee. Subsequently, the said Kapoorchand retracted the statement given earlier. The Assessing Officer pointed out that the said Kapoorchand was not having any asset worth mentioning and he was running his livelihood from the salary earned every month. The Assessing Officer further pointed out that the assessee had deposed that the balance available in the account of Shri.Kapoorchand and Smt.Krian actually belonged to the assessee and he was prepared to offer the same for assessment. It is further found that money had been deposited by cash in the name of Shri.Kapoorchand and Smt.Kiran, a day earlier to the date of cheque issued. Thus the Assessing Officer pointed out to the statement given by the assessee that at the time of search before the search party, the assessee pointed out that money brought in by Kapoorchand and his wife were monies given by the assessee from their unaccounted income. He had filed returns of both these persons and this was done only to accommodate the credits. Thus the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.6,20,000/-. Aggrieved by this addition, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which confirmed the addition. Since the assessee is not pressing this question, there is no need to go into this question. Thus the one and only question that survives for our consideration is as regards the unaccounted investment in gold.