IVA GOGOI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present reference under S. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), is at the instance of the assessee. The following two questions have been referred to this Court for its opinion :

(2.) FOR the asst. year 1987 -88, the assessee submitted her return of income showing a total income of Rs. 65,850. Insofar as the facts material to the instant reference are concerned, it may be noticed that in the return filed, the assessee claimed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000 as loan given by four different creditors in order to enable the assessee to meet the requirement of investments in building construction. Confirmation of loan, statement of account, affidavits and written explanation from the creditors along with the statements of their bank accounts were furnished to the AO in the course of the assessment proceeding. The four creditors in question were also examined by the AO under S. 131 of the Act. By the assessment order dt. 27th Feb., 1990, the AO disallowed the said claim made by the assessee and added an amount of Rs. 1,00,000 as income of the assessee from other sources under S. 68 of the Act. In the appeal filed by the assessee before the learned CIT(A), the learned first appellate authority accepted two items of loan as claimed by the assessee to the extent of Rs. 35,000 but upheld the order of the AO insofar as the other two loan amounts of Rs. 50,000 in the name of one Chandan Mahanta and another amount of Rs. 15,000 in the name of Manoj Mittal are concerned. In the second appeal at the instance of the assessee, the learned Tribunal confirmed the additions made by the primary authority as upheld by the first appellate authority. Thereafter, the assessee having filed an application under S. 256(1) of the Act, the learned Tribunal has referred the abovenoted two questions to this Court for its opinion.

(3.) THE conclusions of the learned Tribunal as to whether the amounts claimed by the assessee to be loans are essentially conclusions on the questions of fact. This Court while exercising its advisory jurisdiction under S. 256 of the Act would not convert itself into a Court of appeal and enter into a reappraisal of the evidence and materials on which the conclusions of the learned Tribunal have been reached. The apex Court in the case of Rameshwar Prasad Bagla vs. CIT 1972 CTR (SC) 459 : (1973) 87 ITR 421 (SC) : TC 54R.340 has laid down the proposition as stated above. It may be useful at this stage to extract herein the following observations of the apex Court in the case of Rameshwar Prasad Bagla (supra) :