SALIGRAM Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, for quashing the order of the Opposite Parties nos. 1 to 3, relating to the asst. yrs. 1964-65, 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70. It appears that in the asst. yr. 1964-65 an addition of Rs. 10,000 was made by the ITO by his order dt. 24th Feb., 1971 on account of unexplained investment. The petitioner perferred an appeal before the AAC, Bareilly.

(2.) IN the appeal, the petitioner contended that part of the amount of Rs. 10,000 mentioned above had been obtained by the petitioner from the sale of a jeep Sri P.K. Khanna, an ex-Member of Parliament. Although this pela was not taken by the petitioner before the ITO but in order to do justice to the petitioner, the AAC directed the ITO to call Sri P.K. Khanna and record his statement to find out whether any jeep was sold by the petitioner to him before the investment made by the petitioner in the property. Persuant to the aforesaid Order of remand made by the AAC the ITO summoned Sri P.K. Khanna but he did not appear. It however, appears that the petitioner changed his case before the ITO and stated before him that the person to whom the jeep was sold was one sri Vishwanath Khanna resident of Mohalla Chamkani Bahadur at Shahjahanpur and not P.K. Khanna. It was also sought to be explained that since the petitioner was an old man of 87 years of age, he had committed a mistake by giving the name of Viswanath Khanna as P.K. Khanna. The matter came up before the AAC. He did not accept the new evidence, which the petitioner intended to adduce and finding that the petitioner had filed to explain the investment made in the construction of the house, he rejected the appeal and confirmed the order of the ITO. Against the aforesaid order the petitioner went in revision to the CIT. The CIT also dismissed the revision and maintained the orders passed by the authorities mentioned above. Hence this writ petition.