SNEH LATA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, has under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, submitted a statement of the case inviting this courts answer to the following question :

(2.) THE facts of the case are very brief. THE assessee, at whose instance the statement has been submitted, was (he is dead and is now represented by his widow) a medical practitioner and for the year 1946-47 was assessed by the Income-tax Officer on an income of Rs. 1,50,420. He had returned an income of Rs. 420 only as his professional income. THE Income-tax Officer found that he had purchased a house in Mussoorie for Rs. 21,000; when he was asked to explain the source of the money, he replied that he had Rs. 30,000 in cash with him. THE Income-tax Officer disbelieved this source of the money and, taking other facts into consideration, inferred that he had derived Rs. 1,50,000 from the business of speculation in the relevant account year. THE assessee filed an appeal. THE Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the assessee had received during the accounting year only Rs. 30,000 in addition to the returned income and that it was not from the business of speculation but from a source other than the sources specified in section 6 of the Indian Income-tax Act. Accordingly, he reduced the amount of assessment by Rs. 1,20,000. In further appeal to the Tribunal the assessee raised the question of the Appellate Assistant Commissioners jurisdiction to treat the amount of Rs. 30,000 as income from any other source when the Income-tax Officer had found no income under that source and had found the income of Rs. 1,50,000 from business. the Tribunal held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to do what he had done and dismissed the appeal. It refused to state the case and then this court called upon it to do so.

(3.) THIS Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with the heads of income in United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax Kapur J. observed at page 695 :