1990 PLP 652 (PTD)
AVDHESH KUMAR JAIN Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX
| Citation | 1990 PLP 652 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Allahabad High Court (India) |
| Bench Members | R.M. Sahai and R.K Gulati, JJ |
| Parties | AVDHESH KUMAR JAIN Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 652 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 652 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Allahabad High Court (India) bench comprising: R.M. Sahai and R.K Gulati, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 652 (PTD) (AVDHESH KUMAR JAIN Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Income‑tax‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Reference‑‑‑Assessee claiming certain amount as agricultural income‑‑‑In absence of evidence amount treated as income by I.‑T.O. and upheld by Tribunal‑‑‑Findings recorded by Tribunals are findings of fact‑‑‑No question of law arises. An assessee claimed that he earned Rs. 28,000 from agriculture and so it was exempt from tax. In the absence of evidence, the Income‑tax Officer assessed it as income from other sources which was upheld by the Tribunal. On a reference it was held that the findings recorded by the Tribunal were findings of fact which were based on appreciation of evidence and no question of law arose from the Tribunal's order.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Reference‑‑‑Assessee claiming certain amount as agricultural income‑‑‑In absence of evidence amount treated as income by I.‑T.O. and upheld by Tribunal‑‑‑Findings recorded by Tribunals are findings of fact‑‑‑No question of law arises. An assessee claimed that he earned Rs. 28,000 from agriculture and so it was exempt from tax. In the absence of evidence, the Income‑tax Officer assessed it as income from other sources which was upheld by the Tribunal. On a reference it was held that the findings recorded by the Tribunal were findings of fact which were based on appreciation of evidence and no question of law arose from the Tribunal's order. This application under section 256(2) of the Income‑tax Act relates to the assessment year 1978‑
79. Basically, two questions have been raised in this application. The first question is whether a sum of Rs. 28,000 which was assessed as income from undisclosed sources was liable to be so assessed. According to the assessee, he had earned that amount from agriculture and it was thus exempt from the tax under the Income‑tax Act. The concurrent findings of the tax authorities including the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal are that the assessee had failed to produce any satisfactory evidence about his being engaged in agricultural activities. The further finding is that the assessee was also not able to state to whom the said agricultural produce was sold. Consequent to the aforesaid finding, the Tribunal has held that the sum of Rs. 28,000 was rightly assessed as income from undisclosed sources in the, hands of the assessee. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the findings recorded by the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal are pure findings of fact which are based on appreciation of evidence. The view taken by the Tribunal is a possible view on the evidence that was placed before it. In our opinion, the order of the Tribunal does not give rise to any question of law on the findings recorded by it. Coming to the second question, the only controversy raised is whether the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in taking the view that 50% of the income from the sale of potatoes stored in the cold storage by the assessee was exempt as income from agriculture. The findings recorded by the Tribunal in that regard also are concluded by the findings of fact and in our opinion do not give rise to any question of law. This application is without any merit and is accordingly rejected. Z.S./749/T Application rejected