High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
Additional Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs. Madanlal Rungta & Ors.
Section WT 16
N.D. Ojha, C.J. & C.P. Sen, J.
MCC No. 307 of 1982
25th June, 1987
B. K. Rawat, for the Revenue : Abhey Sapre, for the Assessee
N. D. OJHA, C. J.:
On a direction issued by this on 12th Aug., 1981, under s. 27(3) of the WT Act, 1957, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this Court for its opinion : “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the AAC whereby he deleted the addition of Rs. 30,000 from the net wealth of the assessee ?”
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that on the findings recorded by the Tribunal, the question referred to us deserves to be answered in the affirmative.
After taking into consideration the material on record, the Tribunal has held that the voluntary disclosures on which emphasis has been placed were not made by the assessee and there was nothing to show that the declarants were benamindars of the assessee. The Tribunal further pointed out that there was no material at all to show that any of the declarants were benamidars of the assessee. According to it, even though relationship was established, at best it would give rise to suspicion and could not constitute proof by itself of a benami arrangement. The Tribunal has further held that no attempt had been made even to suggest as to which declarant was a benamidar of the four partners of the assessee-firm and that indeed it was difficult to imagine that each of the four partners had h share in the cash said to have been held by each benamidar. These findings apparently are findings of fact and in view of these findings, our answer to the question referred to above is that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the AAC whereby he deleted the addition of Rs. 30,000 from the net wealth of the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.
[Citation : 169 ITR 579]