Karnataka High Court
H.N. Parswanath vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 21 June, 2000
Equivalent citations: [2001]247ITR224(KAR), [2001]247ITR224(KARN), [2001]117TAXMAN547(KAR)
Author: R.V. Raveendran
Bench: R.V. Raveendran, V.G. Sabhahit
JUDGMENT R.V. Raveendran, J.
1. Admitted. Heard finally by consent and disposed of by this order.
2. In regard to the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89, certain investments made by major sons of assessee were included in the income of the assessee, as unexplained investments, under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"). That was unsuccessfully challenged by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax and the Tribunal.
3. In regard to the assessment year 1987-88, the Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,00,000 under section 69, towards purchase of a residential house, on the basis of valuation by the Valuation Officer.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner sought reference of the following questions under section 256(1) before the Tribunal :
For assessment year 1987-88 :
"(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding" that the investments of Rs. 1,54,778, made by the major sons of the assessee were the unexplained investments of the assessee for the purpose of section 69, by placing on the assessee the onus of proving the independent sources of income of the sons of the assessee ?
(ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,00,000 made under section 69 towards the purchase of a residential house, on the basis of the valuation by the District Valuation Officer ?"
for the assessment year 1988-89 :
"(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the investments of Rs. 2,47,697, made by the major sons of the assessee were the unexplained investments of the assessee for the purpose of section 69, by placing on the assessee the onus of proving the independent sources of income of sons of the assessee ?"
5. The Tribunal rejected the said request for reference on the ground that the decision is rendered on findings of fact recorded and, therefore, the references are not called for. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed these petitions under section 256(2) of the Act, seeking a direction to the Tribunal, to refer the said questions.
6. The first question that is sought to be raised for 1987-88, and the only question for 1988-89 raised, is whether unexplained investments by the major sons can be added as income of the assessee under section 69. This cannot be said to be a pure question of fact. This question is a question of law, which requires consideration.
7. In so far as the second question for 1987-88 is concerned, it relates to addition of Rs. 1 lakh towards purchase of a residential house on the basis of the valuation made by the District Valuation Officer, which is purely a question of fact and does not involve any question of law.
8. In view of, above, these petitions are allowed in part and the Tribunal is directed to make a reference in regard to the first question for 1987-88 and the only question for 1988-89.
9. Sri E. R. Indrakurnar is permitted to file memo of appearance within six weeks.