1981PTD195 (PLP)

Sh. Khalid Muhammad Din. 14,000 (iii) Sh. Muhammad Din and Sh. Zubair Muhammad Din. 12,000 (v) Sh. Muhammad Din and Miss Kausar Muhammad Din. 12,000 It may be mentioned that Sh. Tariq Muhammad Din, Sh. Khalid Muhammad Din, Sh. Zubair Muhammad Din and Miss Kausar Muhammad Din are the sons and daughter of assessee. During the assessment years under consideration, that is 1967‑68 and 1968‑69, the Income‑tax Officer held that these deposits in fact belonged to the assessee alone. Accordingly, be assessed the interest accruing from these deposits in the hand of the assessee s. Being dissatisfied with this addition to his income the assessee s went m appeal before the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal but without any success. He has now come to this Court and formulated the following questions for decision :‑ "(1) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case it was open to the Appellate Tribunal to include a sum of Rs. 2,416 on account of interest on fixed deposits of Rs. 50,000 in the context, of the Tribunal having itself given a contrary finding in case of Sheikh Modern Carpet Corporation I. T. A. No. 286 of 197‑72 to the effect that Rs. 50,000 had been deposited in bank by Mst. Mehtab Begum the wife of the applicant ? (2) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessment is vitiated on account of erroneous assumption of facts and reliance on deposit of money in the joint names of assessee and four others without any inquiry as to the ownership of money previously held to be property of Mst. Mehtab Begum in the absence of any suggestion that the two deposits are different? The case of the assessee before the revenue authorities was that the amount covered by the fixed deposits originally belonged to his wife Mst. Mehtab Begum and that she had‑gifted it in favour of her four children. Thus, be had nothing to do with these deposits. In support of his assertion he referred to a finding of the Income‑tax Officer in the assessment proceedings relating to a firm known as Modern Carpet Corporation of which he was a partner. The assertion was not accepted by the Tribunal. "The appellant had taken different pleas at different occasions regarding this fixed deposit. It is an admitted fact that in all the four transac tions of fixed deposit name of the appellant was there alongwith that of his children, two of which were major. If the money really belonged to Mst. Mehtab Begum there was no hindrance for her in making the fixed deposits in her own name. Two of the sons of the assessee being major there was no occasion to make joint fixed deposits by the assessee and the inclusion of the appellant's name in all the four fixed deposits clearly established the fact of ownership of the appellant. It is contended on behalf of the assessee that the view taken by the revenue authorities is in conflict with their finding in the case relating to Messrs Modern Carpet Corporation where it was held that the amount of the fixed deposits belonged to Mst. Mehtab Begum. On examining the finding recorded in the case relating to Messrs Modern Carpet Corporation with the finding in this case we can discover no conflict. All that was held in that case was that Mst. Mehtab Begum was in possession of Rs. 40,000 which was later utilized for making fixed deposit in a Bank, but then on the assessee's own showing before the revenue authorities Mst. Mehtab Begun, had parted with this amount by way of gift before the fixed deposits were actually made. Thus she had no concern with the money as it lay in the Bank. In M/s. Modern Carpet Corporation the revenue authorities did not record any finding on the question of gift and the person or persons in whose favour it was made. Thus the finding in these cases that money as it lay in fixed deposits belonged to the assessee to the assessee is not any way inn conflict with the finding Messrs Modem Carpet Corporation. We would, therefore, decide question No. 1 in the affirmative and against the assessee. 3. .As regards question No. 2 the Tribunal has taken into account the attending circumstances and come to the conclusion that the fixed deposit belonged to the assessee and not to his children. This was essentially a question of fact and no point of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. We would decide this question accordingly. .

4. These references are disposed of in the above terms. The assessee shall bear the costs of three references. Order accordingly.