LALL CHAND KALRA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following two questions have been referred by the Tribunal to this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 :

(2.) DURING the accounting year under consideration the ITO found in the books of the company Nankana Sahib Finance (P) Ltd.--two deposits of Rs. 10,000 each entered on 16th March, 1970 and 28th March, 1970 in the account of the assessee. When asked to explain the nature and source of the said investments, the assessee explained that he had received the said amounts as gifts from Sarvshri Sampuran Singh and Boota Ram through Bank Drafts dt. 12th March, 1970 and 26th March, 1970. The two donors were examined by the ITO who stated that the source of their income was agricultural land owned by them which was stated to be 40 and 20 standard acres respectively. Their statements were not accepted by the ITO and the amount of Rs. 20,000 was added as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. The order of the Assessing Authority was confirmed, on appeal, by the AAC. In the second appeal, the Tribunal rejected the contention of the assessee with the following observations; There is no satisfactory evidence on record to prove that they really owned land measuring 40 acres and 20 kilas or that their annual net income was in fact Rs. 30,000 or Rs. 18,000 as alleged by them. it is, therefore, difficult to accept that Sampuran Singh and Boota Ram were men of means.

(3.) IT is true that from the copies of the Jamabandi it is proved that Sampuran Singh along with his two brothers had purchased 30 acres of land from Dalip Singh but there is nothing in the Jamabandi to show as to when this purchase was made. Consequently there is no proof on the "xx xx xx. xx xx xx" record that Sampuran Singh was the owner along with his brothers of any land in the year when he made the advance to the assessee. That apart, 30 acres of land is owned by Sampuran Singh along with his two brothers and his share is only 10 acres. The land being barani, there is absolutely no evidence on the record to show as to what was his income. The finding of the Tribunal that three was no evidence as to the income from the land cannot, therefore, be vitiated even if the Jamabandi entries are taken into consideration. Similarly, no doubt, Boota Ram is proved to be the owner of 20 kilas of land from the copy of the Jamabandi but whole of this land is on chokata for twenty years with co-operative society and there is nothing to show in the Jamabandi as to what is the annual chokata amount. The Tribunal, therefore, was justified in saying that there was no evidence to show that the annual income of Boota Ram from land was Rs. 18,000. Consequently even though the two donors are proved to be the owners of some land yet the copies of the Jamabandi do not furnish any proof regarding their annual income or that they were men of means. Accordingly, Question No. 1 except to the extent of ownership of land is answered in the negative.