LALLU MAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Chhidama Lal Bishambhar Nath was assessed for the year 1966-67 in the status of HUF. In the assessment year 1968-69, Sri Lallu Mal, who was a karta of the aforesaid HUF, was assessed in the status of an individual. The same situation prevailed in the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71. After the assessments for the first two years were completed, the ITO noticed that there were certain fixed deposits in the Punjab National Bank in the names of the wife and minor son of Lallu Mal. He reopened the proceedings under Section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961, and after hearing Sri Lallu Mal, as a representative of the HUF as well as in his individual capacity, he held that the deposits were the income of the assessee. He assessed the amounts of the fixed deposits in the hands of Lallu Mal,

(2.) LALLU Mal went up in appeal, but failed. He filed a further appeal before the Tribunal but remained unsuccessful. At his instance, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law for our opinion :

(3.) THE learned counsel for the assessee invited our attention to the circumstance that Lallu Mal was assessed in the status of an HUF in the assessment year 1966-67 but from the year 1968-69 onwards he was assessed as an individual because there was a partition in the family. After partition, a share must have gone to the wife and the minor son. It was hence probable that the wife and minor son had a source of income from the assets and properties received by them at the partition and from which these deposits may have come out. But unfortunately this explanation was in fact given up by the wife and in the certificate given by her she claimed the deposits to have come out of the gifts received from her parents from time to time. If it had been a fact that the money deposited in the bank were out of the income from the assets and properties received by them in the partition, the wife should have given a certificate to this effect. But no one ever whispered it even. We cannot hence say that there was no material on the record to sustain the finding of the Tribunal.