ORDER
1. These are applications under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act') by the Commissioner, Agra, praying that the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi, be directed to draw up a statement of the case and refer the following questions for the opinion of this court :
1. These are applications under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act') by the Commissioner, Agra, praying that the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi, be directed to draw up a statement of the case and refer the following questions for the opinion of this court :
"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,96,000 and Rs. 2,53,000 in the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, respectively, made on account of unexplained investment, especially when the Hon'ble Tribunal vide their order dated 1-2-1982 in the case of Sunheri Lal Bhagwati Prasad have duly affirmed that these investments were made by the assessee ?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the finding in proceedings of Sunheri Lal Bhagwati, Prasad has been unlawfully used in the case of the assessee
2. The proceedings pertained to the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. The facts are that the present assessee-respondent was a partner in the firm Vishwanath Amar Singh. His sons S/Shri Sunheri Lal and Bhagwati Prasad were carrying on an independent business in the name of Sunheri Lal Bhagwati Prasad. There was a survey at the business premises of Sunheri Lal Bhagwati Prasad and on the basis of certain papers found during the survey, an addition of Rs. 1,96,000 for the assessment year 1974-75 and of Rs. 2,53,000 for the assessment year 1975-76 was made to the income of Sunheri Lal Bhagwati Prasad. During the assessment proceedings of that firm one Benarasi Das, who was a munim, was examined and he stated that the aforesaid amounts pertained to the present assessee Amar Singh. The Income Tax Officer did not accept this contention and made the aforesaid additions, which were ultimately deleted by the Tribunal on the finding that the amounts belonged to the present assessee Amar Singh.
2. The proceedings pertained to the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. The facts are that the present assessee-respondent was a partner in the firm Vishwanath Amar Singh. His sons S/Shri Sunheri Lal and Bhagwati Prasad were carrying on an independent business in the name of Sunheri Lal Bhagwati Prasad. There was a survey at the business premises of Sunheri Lal Bhagwati Prasad and on the basis of certain papers found during the survey, an addition of Rs. 1,96,000 for the assessment year 1974-75 and of Rs. 2,53,000 for the assessment year 1975-76 was made to the income of Sunheri Lal Bhagwati Prasad. During the assessment proceedings of that firm one Benarasi Das, who was a munim, was examined and he stated that the aforesaid amounts pertained to the present assessee Amar Singh. The Income Tax Officer did not accept this contention and made the aforesaid additions, which were ultimately deleted by the Tribunal on the finding that the amounts belonged to the present assessee Amar Singh.
3. In the assessment proceedings against Amar Singh respondent, the latter denied having any connection with the amounts mentioned in the papers found at the business premises of Sunheri Lal Bhagwati Prasad. By this time Benarasi Das had died and was not available for examination and cross-examination in the assessment proceedings against Amar Singh. The assessing officer, relying, inter alia, on the statement of Benarasi Das that was recorded in the assessment proceedings of Sunheri Lal Bhagwati Prasad added the aforesaid amounts to the income of the assessee in the two years referred to above. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) and led additional evidence before him in the form of his own affidavit and the affidavits of several other persons in an attempt to falsify the transactions mentioned in the papers found during the survey. The assessee's appeal was dismissed. He filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) with certain directions. The appeals having again been dismissed, the assessee filed fresh appeals before the Tribunal and it is out of the order dated 25-5-1995 passed in the subsequent appeals that the present applications arise.
3. In the assessment proceedings against Amar Singh respondent, the latter denied having any connection with the amounts mentioned in the papers found at the business premises of Sunheri Lal Bhagwati Prasad. By this time Benarasi Das had died and was not available for examination and cross-examination in the assessment proceedings against Amar Singh. The assessing officer, relying, inter alia, on the statement of Benarasi Das that was recorded in the assessment proceedings of Sunheri Lal Bhagwati Prasad added the aforesaid amounts to the income of the assessee in the two years referred to above. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) and led additional evidence before him in the form of his own affidavit and the affidavits of several other persons in an attempt to falsify the transactions mentioned in the papers found during the survey. The assessee's appeal was dismissed. He filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) with certain directions. The appeals having again been dismissed, the assessee filed fresh appeals before the Tribunal and it is out of the order dated 25-5-1995 passed in the subsequent appeals that the present applications arise.
4. The Tribunal in a detailed order examined the entire evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the material on record does not sustain a finding that the amount in question belonged to the assessee respondent. This is a pure finding of fact and is conclusive between the parties, Sri R.K. Agarwal the learned standing counsel for the revenue, could not convince us that any question of law arises from the orders of the Tribunal. The applications are, accordingly, rejected.
4. The Tribunal in a detailed order examined the entire evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the material on record does not sustain a finding that the amount in question belonged to the assessee respondent. This is a pure finding of fact and is conclusive between the parties, Sri R.K. Agarwal the learned standing counsel for the revenue, could not convince us that any question of law arises from the orders of the Tribunal. The applications are, accordingly, rejected.