SMT. PROMILLA GROVER VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, 1992 PTD-ALLAHABAD-HIGH-COURT-INDIA 840 (1990)

Income-tax---

----Reference--Income from undisclosed sources---Amount invested in construction of house---Tribunal giving cogent reasons for not accepting report of assessee's valuer ---Tribunal rejecting explanation regarding source of income---No question of law arises:

Held, dismissing the application for reference, that the Tribunal had given cogent reasons for not accepting the report of the assessee's valuer regarding the value of the house constructed by the assessee. The Tribunal had also rejected the evidence regarding the source of income after considering such evidence. No question of law arose from its order.

Vikram Gulati for the Assessee.

JUDGMENT

B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, CJ. --- By this application, the assessee is asking this Court to refer the following ten questions under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Lucknow, and rejecting the technical and expert opinion of the approved valuer and confirming the additions made by the assessing authority and Courts below who have no engineering knowledge of the technical subject without the second opinion of any expert on the subject?

(2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Courts below were justified in confirming the additions made on account of unexplained investment in the property while the approved valuer explained the difference between the valuation report of the Government valuer and the approved valuer and reconciled the differences and submitted his report before the appellate authority

(3) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in disbelieving the savings of Rs.71,400 arising out of the income for the assessment years 1977-78 and 1979-80, admittedly when, during the concerned years, the expenses of the petitioner were not incurred by her husband?

(4) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in rejecting the evidence accepted by the Income-tax Officer during the assessment proceedings wherein Smt Saraswati Devi herself appeared before the Income-tax Officer and was cross-examined on the basis of which the said assessing authority has given findings in his assessment order that "Smt. Saraswati Devi is not educated, therefore, she did not maintain regular accounts but keeps a small diary in the names of the creditors and money advanced to them was noted down which she produced for verification "from the conversation, it became evident that the lady is fully aware of the work carried on over the last many years", which clearly shows that she was capable of reading and writing and the said certificate was her own declaration which was never controverted by any direct evidence by the Courts below?

(5) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate. Tribunal was justified in disbelieving the evidence and certificates of late Smt. Saraswati Devi who advanced a loan of Rs. 1.10 lakhs to the -applicant, while the same loan has been accepted by the Income-tax Officer/Assistant Controller, Estate Duty, Lucknbw, in the matter of estate duty case and taxed it as part of the estate of the deceased on the basis of the same certificate in the absence of any evidence to the contrary? .

(6) Whether there was any -material before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to hold that the applicant was meeting the family expenses and for the years 1977-78 and 1989-80, the applicant must have spent an amount to the extent of Rs. 21,406 out of her savings and whether such findings are not based on surmises and conjectures and are against the material on record?

(7) Whether in view of the diary maintained by Smt. Saraswati Devi (since deceased). in her own and in respect of the creditors and money advanced to them, `the Tribunal was right in holding that Smt. Saraswati Devi was an illiterate person and was not capable of either writing and understanding the content and certificate filed in support of the loan given by her to the applicant and whether such findings are liable to be admitted, and can be said to be based on legal and relevant material?

(8) Whether the loan being an amount of Rs. 1,10,000 advanced by Smt. Saraswati Devi was rightly disbelieved by the hon'ble Tribunal, in particular that the said amount was assessed as a part of the estate in her estate duty assessment on the ground that the estate duty return was filed late, and whether (sic.) could in law, take a contrary view disregarding the estate duty assessment order?

(9) Whether there was any material to hold that the entire amount of Rs.1,10,000 which was shown as a loan from Smt. Saraswati Devi was the money which was received during the entire period of construction between 1977 and 1981 as well as the addition thereof made by the income-tax authorities in the value of the construction taking the Government valuer's report as its basis, and disbelieving the savings and loan, etc; was liable to be assessed as income from undisclosed sources in the year in dispute notwithstanding that the construction was spread over from 1977 to 1981?

(10) Whether the rejection of the assessee's explanation with regard to the loan by Smt. Saraswati Devi and the savings to the extent of Rs.21,400 which have been disbelieved out of her own income is based on any material and findings of the hon'ble Tribunal are not liable to be set aside being perverse, in disregard of the material and based on surmises and conjctures?

We may point out that the only dispute before the Tribunal was as to the amount invested in constructing the assessee's house. The assessee filed a report of her valuer which was not accepted by the Tribunal. The Department obtained the opinion of its own valuer and acted upon it. The Tribunal has given cogent reasons for not accepting the report of the applicant's valuer. Regarding source of income, the material placed before it by the assessee has been considered and rejected. No question of law arises from the order of Tribunal.

The application is, accordingly, rejected.

M.B.A./1534/TApplication rejected.