JUDGMENT Heard Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A.N. Mahajan for the department.
2. This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act.
2. This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act.
3. In the impugned judgment of the Income Tax Tribunal dated 30-7-2003 it has been stated in para 5 of the order that the assessees husband Subhash Chand Jain in his declaration under KVSS for assessment year 1990-91 had accepted the fact that the dalali income belonged to him and there was no change in the facts of the case for assessment year 1992-93 which relates to the present appeal. It is well-settled that under section 260A this court can only interfere when there is a substantial question of law, and it cannot interfere with findings of fact. Whether the income was of the assessee or of her husband is a pure question of fact. Even if there is some evidence in support of a finding of the fact this court cannot interfere and it cannot go into the adequacy of the evidence. It is only if there is no evidence at all that this court under section 260A can interfere with findings of fact.
3. In the impugned judgment of the Income Tax Tribunal dated 30-7-2003 it has been stated in para 5 of the order that the assessees husband Subhash Chand Jain in his declaration under KVSS for assessment year 1990-91 had accepted the fact that the dalali income belonged to him and there was no change in the facts of the case for assessment year 1992-93 which relates to the present appeal. It is well-settled that under section 260A this court can only interfere when there is a substantial question of law, and it cannot interfere with findings of fact. Whether the income was of the assessee or of her husband is a pure question of fact. Even if there is some evidence in support of a finding of the fact this court cannot interfere and it cannot go into the adequacy of the evidence. It is only if there is no evidence at all that this court under section 260A can interfere with findings of fact.
4. In the present case there is certainly evidence in the form of the statement of the assessees own husband for assessment year 1990-91. Merely because the assessee has been assessed in some other years it does not make the matter res judicata as it is well-settled that the principle of res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings vide Kanga and Palkhivalas The Law and Practice of Income, Tax, 5th Edn., p. 1143 and p. 1313.
4. In the present case there is certainly evidence in the form of the statement of the assessees own husband for assessment year 1990-91. Merely because the assessee has been assessed in some other years it does not make the matter res judicata as it is well-settled that the principle of res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings vide Kanga and Palkhivalas The Law and Practice of Income, Tax, 5th Edn., p. 1143 and p. 1313.
5. As regards the appellants claim for exemption under section 54F the matter has been remanded back by the Tribunal to the assessing officer, We see no reason to interfere with the said direction as there is no error of law. The appeal is dismissed.
5. As regards the appellants claim for exemption under section 54F the matter has been remanded back by the Tribunal to the assessing officer, We see no reason to interfere with the said direction as there is no error of law. The appeal is dismissed.