TMI Blog1980 (3) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial year, there were two more cash deposits of Rs. 20,532.59 on June 11, 1958 and Rs. 29,000 on July 5, 1958. The explanation regarding the source of these deposits (made in 1957, 1958) was disbelieved by the ITO and an amount of Rs. 19,643 (for the financial year 1957) and Rs. 49,532 (for the financial year 1958) were added to the income of the assessee for the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59, as income of the assessee from "undisclosed" sources. The assessee preferred an appeal against the said order of the ITO before the AAC, Income-tax, Jammu Range, Jammu, who rejected the same. A further appeal before the I.T. Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, also failed. Before the ITO, the assessee explained that the deposits in 1957 and 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon the statement of Dr. Jameet Rai Malhotra, father-in-law of the assessee, dated January 18, 1973, recorded by the Inspector of Income-tax at Delhi. In this statement, Dr. Jameet Rai Malhotra had given his financial position and status and stated that Rs. 500 only had been given to the assessee at the time of his marriage, besides other things. Before the Tribunal, an objection was raised by the assessee to the order of the ITO on two grounds, viz., (1) that the statement of Dr. Malhotra which had been relied upon to disbelieve the explanation of the assessee was inadmissible in evidence as it was a sworn statement, recorded by an Inspector of Income-tax who had no jurisdiction to administer oath before recording such a statement, and (2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment year 1958-59 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in relying upon the statement of the Income-tax Inspector when the Inspector had no power to administer oath and record sworn statement and whether the affidavit filed by Dr. Malhotra can be disbelieved in view of the statement recorded by the Inspector of Income-tax when this statement has no force in law ? 3. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in concluding that the cash credits have not been sufficiently explained by the petitioner and that these amounts represent the concealed income for the assessment year 1958-59 ? 4. Whether the finding of the Tribunal with respect to cash credits is perver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stion of law, (2) that the said question of law was raised before the Tribunal, (3) that the said question of law arises out of the appellate order of the Tribunal. We have, therefore, to consider whether the question raised by the assessee satisfies these conditions or not. Vide s. 131 of the I.T. Act, power has been given to an ITO to record the statement of any person on oath. The Act has for the purposes of this section not equated an I.T. Inspector with the ITO. No such power (to administer oath) has been given to an Inspector and therefore, an Inspector of Income-tax would have no jurisdiction to administer an oath before recording a statement. Whether the administration of oath would render such statement inadmissible, is a question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal. It is well settled that the powers of this court under s. 256, for directing reference to be made to this court, are not confirmed only to the form of the question as raised before the Tribunal but the court can also direct the Tribunal to refer such other questions which was debated before the Tribunal and which arises out of the appellate order, provided, of course, it is a question of law. The court can even reframe the question of law so as to bring out the real nature of controversy. In our opinion, both these questions of law should have been referred to this court and the order of the Tribunal refusing to make a reference is not sustainable. We, therefore, allow the petition and direct the Tribunal to state the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
