Commissioner of Income Tax vs Haji Jan Mohd. Gaur

We have heard Mr. Sundeep Bhandawat, learned counsel for the Revenue.

The only contention raised is that the Tribunal has committed error in deleting an addition of Rs. 5,00,000 on account of cars held by the assessee in the name of other parties. On elaborate discussion, the Tribunal has found that the Department has failed to produce any evidence that the subject vehicles were owned and possessed by the assessee, except the fact, that the names of the vehicles were written on the back page of annexure 2. On such material, it cannot be concluded that the vehicles were held benami by the assessee. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is a finding of fact.

Learned counsel has referred to a decision of the apex court in Chuharmal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, M.P., . In the said case the wrist watches were found in possession of the assessee. In view of this fact it was held that it could be deemed to be an income of the assessee.

In the instant case, it is not the case of the Revenue that the vehicles were found in the possession of the assessee. In view of this the authority cited by learned counsel does not advance the case of the Revenue.

No substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is rejected.