(1.) THIS is a reference under S. 64(1) of the ED Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), made at the instance of the CED, Bombay City II. The questions referred to us for our determination are as follows :
(2.) AS far as question No. 1 is concerned, it is unnecessary to consider the same, because it is common ground that it is completely covered by question No. 2. As far as question No. 2 is concerned, it is again, agreed between Mr. Joshi and Mr. Pandit that this question must be answered in favour of the accountable person and against the Department in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in CED vs. C. R. Ramachandra Gounder (1973) 88 ITR 448 (SC) and its decision in Civil Appeals Nos. 2527 and 2528 of 1972 (CED vs. Kamlavati & CED vs. Jai Gopal Mehra (1979)12 CTR (SC) 389 : (1979) 120 ITR 456) delivered on 5th Sept., 1979, and in view of our judgment in ED Ref. No. 1 of 1970 (Khatijabai Abdulla Soomar (Smt.) vs. CED (1980) 15 CTR (Bom) 126 : (1980) 124 ITR 160 (Bom), delivered on 13th Sept., 1979. What survives, therefore, for our determination is only question No. 3 set out above.
(3.) BEFORE going into the contentions raised before us, it will be useful to take note of the provisions of s. 10 of the said Act, which runs as follows :