JUDGMENT V. Bhargava, J.
1. The assessee is a firm in which there were three partners Munna Lal (since dead) who was the financing partner holding a -/13/- share and Debi Dayal and Dwarka Nath working partners holding -/2/- and -/1/- respectively in the assessment year in question 1944-45 the relevant accounting year being July, 194a to July, 1943. In this relevant accounting year, there were found in the books of account of the firm two credits of the sums of Rs. 10,000/- and 15,000/- on 31-12-1942 and 11-3-1943 in the names of Smt. Shakuntala wife of Munna Lal and Behari Lal father-in-law of Munna Lal respectively. The Income-tax authorities called upon the assessee to explain the source of these deposits.
The Income-tax authorities, not being satis-fied with the explanation given by the assessee, treated these two deposits as taxable income of the assessee for the year in question and the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner failed. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the appeal with regard to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- out of this total amount of Rs. 25,000/-added by the Income-tax Officer in making the assessment but upheld the order of the Income-tax Officer with regard to Rs. 15,000/-. It is on these facts that the following question has been referred for our opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal:
"Whether there was any material on record to establish that the sum of Rs. 15,000/- was taxable income of the assessee?"
2. When arguing this question before us, Mr. Pathak has drawn our attention to the finding given by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the appellete order tn the effect that these deposits of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- appeared in the books of account of the assessee in the names of Smt. Shakuntala and Behari Lal. In fact, it was Munna Lal the financing partner who had arranged for these sums of money. The language used in the appellate order is that in the account year in question the assessee firm started another bust-ness styled as Gopalji Govindaji and Munna Lal being a -/13/- share-holder had to arrange for major portion of the capital required for this business. After expressing this view, the Tribunal proceeded to examine the explanation which was given by the representative of the assessee at the time of hearing of the appeal with regard to the sources from which Munna Lal had provided this money.
This method of proceeding by the Tribunal clearly shows that the Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that this money was brought into accounts of the firm by Munna Lal the financing partner. Once that explanation was accepted by the Tribunal, we fail to see how any part of that amount could be held to be the revenue Income of the assessee firm. The acceptance of the plea that the money was brought in by Munna Lal involves in it a finding that Munna Lal was the owner of this entire money so that the firm could not be the owner of it. In that money the other two persons Debi Dayal and Dwarka Nath had no share.
In the circumstances, this money which did not belong to the firm could not be held to be profits belonging to the firm and earned during the year in question. In this light of the matter, it is quite unnecessary for us to examine how far the explanation offered for the sources from which Munna Lal obtained this money is correct. In the proceedings for assessment of the firm, the amount cannot possibly be taken into account once it has been held that the money belonged not to the firm but to one of the partners, Munna Lal. Consequently, our answer to the question referred is in the negative.
3. The assessee will be entitled to costs which we assess at Rs. 200/-.