9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (1) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al to this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : (1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's finding to the effect' (i) that Shri Sampuran Singh and Shri Boota Ram were not men of means. (ii) that they did not respectively own 40 acres and 20 kilas of land, and (iii) that their annual incomes were not ₹ 30,000 and ₹ 18,000 respective ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere examined by the ITO who stated that the source of their income was agricultural land owned by them which was stated to be 40 and 20 standard acres respectively. Their statements were not accepted by the ITO and the amount of ₹ 20,000 was added as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. The order of the Assessing Authority was confirmed, on appeal, by the AAC. In the second appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... long with his two brothers had purchased 30 acres of land from Dalip Singh but there is nothing in the Jamabandi to show as to when this purchase was made. Consequently there is no proof on the record that Sampuran Singh was the owner along with his brothers of any land in the year when he made the advance to the assessee. That apart, 30 acres of land is owned by Sampuran Singh along with his two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be the owners of some land yet the copies of the Jamabandi do not furnish any proof regarding their annual income or that they were men of means. Accordingly, Question No. 1 except to the extent of ownership of land is answered in the negative. 4. In view of the answer to Question No, 1, the second question need not be answered. However, even if Question No. 1 was answered in affirmative this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
