1988 (4) TMI 44 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the transactions relating to purchases and sales of oil were carried out by the assessee himself in the name of his son?

Detailed Analysis:

The judgment pertains to a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, where the question of law was whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that transactions involving purchases and sales of oil were carried out by the assessee in the name of his son, resulting in a profit of Rs. 16,633. The relevant assessment year was 1976-77, and the assessee, a selling agent, was involved in four transactions shown to be made in the name of his son. The Income-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and the Tribunal concluded that the transactions were benami, with the son being a mere benamidar. The Tribunal's inference was based on various circumstances, including the absence of the son's investment, participation, or other similar transactions during the relevant period.

The judgment emphasized that the question of benami is primarily a factual issue, and the finding must be based on evidence without incorrect principles or extraneous circumstances. The Tribunal's conclusion of benami was supported by specific circumstances, such as the lack of investment by the son, absence of participation, and the overall material present. The Tribunal found that the Revenue had proven the transactions were benami, as they were made by the assessee in the name of his son, based on relevant and material circumstances. The judgment concluded that the Tribunal's finding was not vitiated and upheld the view in favor of the Revenue, denying the assessee's claim.

In summary, the judgment addressed the issue of benami transactions involving purchases and sales of oil, where the Tribunal concluded that the transactions were carried out by the assessee in the name of his son. The decision was based on specific circumstances indicating benami dealings, and the Tribunal's finding was deemed valid as it was supported by relevant evidence and correctly applied principles. Consequently, the reference was answered in favor of the Revenue, affirming the Tribunal's view and denying the assessee's claim.