VISWANTAH KANODIA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Tribunal has referred the following four questions of law to this Court under s. 256(1) of the Act, 1961 :

(2.) THE relevant facts, as stated in the statement of case by the Tribunal are as under : The assessee Viswanath Kanodia is a 50 per cent partner of Indermal Vishwanath, the other 50 per cent partner being his mother. During the course of search at the residential and business premises, namely, 11 Burtolla Street, Calcutta on 29th Aug., 1980, besides other items a gold lump weighting 229.6 grams was discovered and seized by the authorised officer under s. 132 of the IT Act, 1961. At the relevant time, namely, while the search was going on the statement of Vishwanath Kanodia in terms of sub-s. (4) of s. 132 was recorded in which the authorised officer asked the assessee to explain, inter alia, as to wherefrom he had got the said lump of gold and for how many years he had been having it. The version of the assessee given in course of interrogation by the ITO was significantly changed in course of proceedings under s. 132(5). The assessee's explanation was recorded by the authorised officer and was witnessed by Mr. M.L. Kedia and Mr. P.N. Agarwal. Thereafter in course of deposition on 5th Nov., 1980 the assessee changed his stand and the Tribunal has stated in its order :

(3.) WHEN the case went to the Tribunal, the Tribunal was of the view that the assessee had not been able to give any cogent explanation as to the nature and source of the acquisition of the gold lump. The explanation given by the assessee was not accepted by the ITO. In course of regular assessment proceedings, the ITO is entitled to rely on evidence gathered by him from any source. No formality is required for this purpose. The ITO gave an opportunity to the assessee to rebut or deal with the allegation.