Puran Mal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax
1990 Latest Caselaw 364 Del

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner is seeking reference of question all of which pertain to an item of alleged profit of Rs. 3,41,655. This amount has been taxed in the hands of the petitioner.

2. Two questions which arise are whether this income had accursed and, secondly, whether this income belonged to Smt. Gitesh Bansal or the petitioner.

3. The Tribunal has found as a fact that the aforesaid amount of rupees 3,41,655 is an income which had arisen by reason of a forward transaction in goods which had taken place with a Meerut party known as Daulatram Nathu Mal. This profit of Rs. 3,41,655 was credited in the account of Smt. Gitesh Bansal on the last date of the accounting year. The Tribunal has further found that the petitioner has in fact claimed this vary amount as the bad debt. Further more, reference has been made by the Tribunal to a letter dated March 16, 1984, written by the petitioner to the Income-tax Officer, wherein it has been admitted that a profit of Rs. 3,53,435 which include the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,41,655 had been earned but not a single paisa has been received. It is because of the non-dispute of the money that the assessed himself has claimed this amount as a bad debt.

4. The further fact which has been taken into consideration by the Tribunal is that the petitioner has himself filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,60,000 which includes the said amount of Rs. 3,41,655. In view of the aforesaid fact, the Tribunal has concluded that the said income of Rs. 3,41,655 had in fact arisen. This conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is one of fact and is based on evidence and, in our opinion, no question of law arises.

5. Secondly, the Tribunal has held after taking all the facts into consideration that the income in fact belonged to the petitioner and not to Smt. Gitesh Bansal, who was the daughter in law of the petitioner. learned counsel for the petitioner has cited CIT v. Motor Credit Co. P. Ltd. [1981] 127 ITR 572 (Mad), 29 ITR (sic), CIT v. A. Gajapathy Naidu and Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC), which, in our opinion are not applicable to the present case because the points involved are pure questions of fact and on appreciation of evidence, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal does not call for any reference.

6. In our opinion, no question of law arises and the petition is, accordingly dismissed.