COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. BANSHIDHAR BADRINARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the Revenue. No one appears for the assessee in spite of service. This is an application under S. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, at the instance of Revenue requiring the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, to state the case and refer the following questions of law said to be arising out of the Tribunal appellate's order dt. 13th March, 1984, for the asst. yr. 1975-76 in the case of the respondent-assessee.

(2.) ON a search being carried on in the premises of the respondent-assessee on 15th June, 1974, the assessee was found in possession of 18.818 kgs. of gold and gold ornaments. The assessee was required to show the source of acquisition and possession of the gold. The explanation furnished by the assessee in respect of it was not found to be satisfactory by the AO and he made addition of a value of said gold as income from undisclosed sources. On appeal, the CIT(A) has accepted the claim of the assessee to the extent that 35 per cent of the total weight of gold that is to say 6.818 kgs. as gold in possession of the assessee's business of pawning and to that extent partly accepted the appeal. However, for balance of 12 kgs., of gold found in possession of the assessee, the explanation of the assessee was not accepted by the CIT (A). On further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal accepted the claim of the assessee that out of remaining 12 kgs., gold, 5 kgs. gold belonged to three daughters-in-law of the assessee and not to the assessee. For the remaining 7 kgs., of the gold which was valued at Rs. 1,85,000, The Tribunal held as under :

(3.) ON the one hand a presumption has been raised by the Tribunal that since the assessee is carrying on business for number of years, therefore, he might have acquired the gold in question from the undisclosed income attributable to number of years during long period, and on the other hand there exists a statutory presumption under S. 69A in favour of Revenue when explanation furnished by an assessee is not found satisfactory about possession of any cash or other valuables found in possession of a person that it is deemed to be the income of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which assessee was found in possession of the unexplained assets. We are of the opinion that all the three questions suggested by the Revenue in its application refer to only single aspect of the same issue which has been wholesomely embedded in question No. 2 which is a question of law and do arise out of Tribunal's appellate order. Accordingly, we allow this application and direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the question No. 2 of the three questions suggested by the Revenue as question of law arising out of the Tribunal's order for its opinion of this Court. No orders as to costs.