UTTAMCHAND JAIN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON being required to do so by this court, the Tribunal, Nagpur, has referred the following question to this court for its opinion :

(2.) IT has been urged by learned counsel for the assessee that the burden to prove that Bhagchand was a benamidar for the assessee lay on the Department which had set up the plea of benamidar and since the Department had failed to produce any satisfactory evidence in support of the said plea, the finding recorded by the Tribunal is apparently illegal.

(3.) COMING back to the submission made by counsel for the assessee that the finding of the Tribunal was vitiated inasmuch as the Department had not produced any cogent evidence in support of its plea that Bhagchand was a benamidar, suffice it to point out that when the evidence produced on behalf of Bhagchand himself in the case relating to his assessment itself was sufficient to establish that Bhagchand did not have any source of income so as to make an investment in the contract business, it was open to the Department as well as the Tribunal to rely on the said evidence. It has not been urged by learned counsel for the assessee that the said evidence was inadmissible. In view of that evidence, we do not find any error in the finding of the Income-tax Officer that Bhagchand was a benamidar. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, in reversing the finding of the Income-tax Officer, has not at all referred to the material relied on by the Income-tax Officer, already referred to above. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in setting aside the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.