COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. HANUMAN PRASAD BAGARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN our opinion, the statements in the case referred are clearly insufficient to enable us to determine the question raised. The appellate order passed in the case is a striking example of what appellate orders should not be and the statement of the case itself is an example of the consequences that must sometimes follow when the appeal is heard by two particular members of the Tribunal and the reference is made by two other members.

(2.) THE question raised in the case is whether there was any material before the Tribunal on which it could be held that the gold which the assessee sold in the accounting year had been purchased in the year 1918 and that the amount entered in the books represented the proceeds of that sale. THE amount in question is Rs. 72,523 and it appears in the books of the assessee in the name of his father. THE assessee's explanation was that he had purchased some gold in 1918 at Bombay and had kept it with him till the accounting year when he had sold it for the sum entered in the books and that it had been entered in his father's name, because such was the Marwari custom. Except the statement of the assessee that the gold had been purchased in 1918, there was no evidence either in the shape of the books of the assessee himself or papers of the party from whom the purchase had been made. Both the ITO and the AAC held that the purchase of gold in 1918 had not been proved and in their view the gold, the sale of which had yielded the sum found in the books, had been purchased with secret profits of the assessee. This finding of the ITO and the AAC was reversed by the Tribunal by an order which reads like an order passed by Honorary Magistrates at summary trials. All that the Tribunal says is the follows :

(3.) WE must, therefore, send the case back in exercise of our powers under s. 66(4) of the Act. WE direct the Tribunal to draw up and forward to this Court a supplementary statement as to the manner in which the Appellate Bench of the Tribunal "examined the personal history of the appellant". It should be stated :