TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nion of this court on the following question: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in excluding the amount of Rs. 28,800 from the assessment of the assessee without recording a finding as to whom does this amount belong to?" The facts are not in dispute. The assessee in her return of income for the assessment year 1977-78 showed the income of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not the owner of the investment, the amount of investment could not have been added to the assessee's declared income. Counsel for the Revenue would submit that without recording the categorical finding as to whom the amount of Rs. 27,320 belonged, the Tribunal was not justified in excluding the said amount. She relied upon the following judgments: (1) ITO v. Bachu Lal Kapoor [1966] 60 ITR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal found that the assessee was not in the owner of the investment, the specific finding ought to have been given with regard to the person which in the present case is the husband of the assessee that the said sum belonged to him. In Bachu Lal Kapoor [1966] 60 ITR 74 the Supreme Court was concerned with the notice issued under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, to the kart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the assessment of the income on protective basis in the hands of the assessee was done but during the assessment it was found that the income belonged to the benami and the said finding given by the Tribunal did not suffer from any perversity. We hardly find relevance of the decision in Suresh Kumar Rawat [1995] 216 ITR 137 for decision by us in the present case. In the case of Smt. Saraswat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee, that could not have been added to the income of the assessee. We wanted to know from counsel for the Revenue as well as the assessee with regard to the assessment of the assessee's husband but both of them were not able to give any firm answer in that regard. Be that as it may, on the face of categorical and unequivocal finding that the assessee was not the owner of the investment and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
