1988 (4) TMI 44

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to answer the following question of law, namely: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the transactions relating to purchases and sales of 1,765 tins of oil yielding a profit of Rs. 16,633 had been carried out by the assessee himself in the name of his son, Shri Sukhraj Mehta, and in upholding the assessment of Rs. 16,633 in the han .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... his son, Sukhraj Mehta, was a mere benamidar. Accordingly, this amount of profit was included in the income of the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and thereafter the Tribunal have affirmed this conclusion. Hence, this reference at the instance of the assessee. It is obvious that the question of benami is essentially one of fact and unless the finding thereon is based on no eviden .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and the entire transaction was made by Sumermal, a munim of the assessee, in the name of the assessee's son, Sukhraj Mehta. 3. There was no evidence to show the participation of the assessee's son, Sukhraj Mehta. 4. During the relevant accounting year, apart from these transactions, there were no other transactions of this kind made by the assessee's son, Sukhraj Mehta. On the basis of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X