KHUDI RAM LAHA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a case stated under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question referred is :

(2.) THE material facts are these : THE original assessment of the assessee was completed on 28th January, 1950, on an income of Rs. 8,350 from business and Rs. 100 from property. On 19th February, 1952, a notice under section 34 was issued on the basis of information received that the assessee had purchased a house on 30th August 1948, for Rs. 14,500. THE source of money for purchasing that property was not disclosed. THE explanation furnished was that, though the sale deed and the property stood in the name of the assessee he was in fact a benamidar for his wife by her mother. THE wife did not go into the witness box not was there any other material placed on the record by the assessee, and, a therefore, the sum, of Rs. 14,500 was treated as income from an undisclosed source. During the course of the assessment proceedings a penalty notice under section 28(1)(c) was issued. In due course, a penalty of Rs. 3,392 was levied. THE Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal upheld the levy of the penalty. Hence, the reference at the instance of the assessee.

(3.) FOR the reasons given above, the question is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. The reference is answered accordingly. The assessee will pay the costs of the reference which we assess at Rs. 200. Counsels fee is also assessed at Rs. 200.