S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. These civil miscellaneous petitions had been filed to recall the judgment dated October 8, 1999, in I.T.R. Nos. 180 to 192 of 1997 (CIT v. K. Mahim Udma [2000] 242 ITR 133). An affidavit has been filed by Sri George K. George, who appeared in the above income-tax reference cases. It is stated in the affidavit that twelve connected cases were disposed of by a common judgment dated October 8, 1999. The earliest of the assessment years concerned was 1972-73. It is stated that by judgment dated November 5, 1994, reported in CIT v. K. Mahim [1995] 213 ITR 820, this court directed the Tribunal to consider afresh the earlier order. After the remand, the Tribunal considered the question afresh in the light of the observations in [1995] 213 ITR 820. The Tribunal reversed its earlier finding and passed the order on March 13, 1996. But, this order was not brought to the notice of this court. The case was argued on the basis of the earlier findings of the Tribunal which was the subject-matter of [1995] 213 ITR 820. Hence, it is prayed that the judgment dated October 8, 1999, may be recalled. After hearing both sides, and also on the facts stated in the affidavit, we recall the judgment dated October 8, 1999, in I.T.R. Nos. 180 to 192 of 1997 (see [2000] 242 ITR 133).
2. Post I. T. R. Nos. 180 to 192 of 1997 along with I. T. R. Nos. 13 to 16 of 2000, on January 2, 2001.
S. Sankarasubban, J.
(14-2-200l).
3. These cases relate to the different assessment years. The question of law referred is (see [2000] 242 ITR 133, 135), "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 40,000 relating to the improvement of the Mangalore property, in the year 1972-73 and the addition of Rs. 15,000 for the assessment years 1973-74, 1976-77 to 1979-80 and 1981-82 to 1983-84 as the income from the said property ?" In a connected matter with regard to the same assessee, viz., I. T. R. Nos. 13 to 16 of 2000 (K. Mahin Udma v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 71), it is found that the Appellate Tribunal had held that the property was purchased benami in the name of the asses-see. The question in these cases relates to the income from this property and also the construction made in the property. In view of the fact that it has been found that the property belongs to the assessee and the construction was also made by him, the findings arrived at by the Tribunal are not correct.
4. Hence, we answer the question in the negative against the assesse.