TMI Blog1986 (9) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Government ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly cancelled the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for each of the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1973-74 ? " Earlier, we had heard Taxation Cases Nos. 93 to 98 of 1978 (CIT v. Pushpa Devi [1987] 164 ITR 639) which we disposed of by our judgment dated June 13, 1986. The questions referred to us for our consideration in the present references fell for consideration in the earlier cases as well. In the aforesaid earlier cases, questions Nos. 1 and 4 were as follows: " (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly held th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irst question was, therefore, answered in the negative. That meant that the Tribunal was not right in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax could not interfere with the order of assessment made under section 143(1) of the Act in pursuance of the " Scheme to help new taxpayers in small income groups ". It may be stated here that the present case arose as a sequel to the same scheme as fell for consideration in the case of Pushpa Devi 1987] 164 ITR 639. In our view, therefore, following our earlier decision, the first question referred to us in these cases must be answered in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The first question having been answered in favour of the Revenue, it necessarily follows that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gone into. A crucial question was whether the source of initial capital had been explained by the assessee or not. On the facts of the present case, prejudice is writ large. In the case of a first assessee, the assessee had to show the source of the initial capital investment. No enquiry had been held in that regard and the ipse dixit of the assessee had been accepted. If a proper enquiry had been held, it could show that the capital had been advanced by the husband of the lady. In that situation, the conclusion would be obvious that the declaration by the lady had been made really in regard to the income of the husband. That is the special situation in this case. In the case of Shantilal Agarwalla [1983] 142 ITR 778 (Pat), N. P. Singh J. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
