JUDGMENT
R.K. Abichandani, J.
1. The assessee who is a sole proprietor of M/s. Mayur Transport Service had filed a return of income on August 28, 1974, for the assessment year 1974-75, declaring a total income of Rs. 22,050. He was doing business of transporting goods in the name of M/s. Mayur Transport service and was having his head office at Baroda and a branch at Bombay. The Income-tax Officer, on examination of the accounts, noticed that there were certain discrepancies in the various accounts of trucks bearing Nos. GTB 4681, GTB 6426 and GTB 5456 and, in this connection, the persons in whose names these trucks stood at the relevant time were examined. However, the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the material on record, found that all the ingredients of a benami transaction were present in all these three case and that the explanation of the assessee that these three trucks were hired by him from the three persons in whose names they stood and that the amounts paid to them were hiring charges was not acceptable. The accumulated net credits in these truck accounts were, accordingly, assessed as a part of the assessee’s income from transport business. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Central), Baroda, on going through the draft assessment forwarded by the Income-tax Officer, held that the Income-tax Officer was justified in holding that these trucks were dealt with by the assessee in benami names. He held that evidence on record was strong enough to hold that these trucks were really owned by the assessee only. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner gave directions to the Income-tax Officer to reverify and assess the correct income in respect of the truck business, and, accordingly, the Income-tax Officer determined the total income of the assessee as Rs. 1,89,295 by his order dated September 30, 1981, passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed the findings of the Income-tax Officer holding that the decision in principle that the income from these trucks should be taxed in the hands of the assessee deserved to be upheld while correcting the income from truck bearing No. GTB 6426 that was required to be included in the total income of the assessee. The matter was carried to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal, after going through the material on record, upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that though these three persons were projected as owners of the trucks on paper, the income was actually enjoyed by the assessee. By its order dated October 31, 1983, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.
2. In compliance with the directions of the High Court, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of the High Court under section 256(2) of the Act :
“1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the income from the three trucks GTB 4681, GTB 6426 and GTB 5456 was properly added to the assessee’s income ?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material before the Tribunal to hold that the assessee, and not the persons in whose name the aforesaid three trucks were registered, was the owner of the said trucks ?
3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have held that, as the Revenue authorities had failed to show that the funds for the purchase of the trucks came from the assessee the income from the said trucks could not be included in the assessee’s income ?
4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have held that the mere rejection of the statements made by the person in whose names the trucks were registered, could not led to the conclusion that the assessee was owner of the trucks ?
5. Whether, on the fats and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material before the Tribunal to hold that the assessee had enjoyed the income from the trucks in question ?
6. Whether the Tribunal’s finding that the assessee is the owner of the trucks and has enjoyed the income is based on conjectures, suspicions and surmises and is perverse ?
7. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has ignored relevant material and has taken into account irrelevant considerations in holding that the assessee is the owner of the trucks and has enjoyed the income therefrom ?
8. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in ignoring the facts that although the said trucks had been purchased by the persons in whose names they were registered several years ago, the income from the said trucks had not been added to the assessee’s income in the assessment years prior to the assessment year 1974-75 ?”
3. Mr. K. H. Kaji, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the assessee, submitted that the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee was the owner of the trucks and enjoyed the income from all the trucks was based on conjectures and surmises and was not at all warranted by the evidence on record. He submitted that these three trucks were, at the relevant time, registered in the names of persons other than the assessee and there was no reason whatsoever to draw an inference that they were the benamidars of the assessee. He further submitted that the certificates issued by the Regional Transport Authority showed that, at the relevant time, the trucks bearing Nos. GTB 4681 stood in the name of Mehtabkhan Yamankhan Pathan, GTB 6426 stood in the name of Shivaji Khanderao More and GTB 5456 was in the name of Shri Ganesh Narayan Kahar. He also submitted that the statements of these persons who were the owners of the trucks supported the case of the assessee.
4. Mr. Kaji took us through the evidence on record including the statements of Mehtabkhan Yamankhan Pathan, Shivaji Khanderao More and Shri Ganesh Narayan Kahar and the reasons adopted by the Tribunal and the authorities below for holding that these three persons were not the real owners of the trucks and that they were only benamidars. We find that there is hardly any reason to take a different view of the matter. It clearly transpires from the materials on record that none of these persons had sufficient means to purchase the trucks and that the entire management and control of the trucks vested in the assessee. Admittedly, various amounts which stood in the accounts of these three trucks on the credit side were never paid to the truck owners even after they had ceased their dealings with the assessee. If the amounts which stood in the accounts of these three trucks really belonged to these three persons who are purported to be the owners of the trucks, then the assessee surely would have paid to them the amounts after they ceased to be the owners of the trucks as alleged by them. There is no cogent reason given for allowing these amounts to remain in the hands of the assessee for a number of years after these purported owners of the trucks ceased their dealings with the assessee, as per their statements. None of the three persons purporting to be the owners of these trucks could satisfactorily show that they had sufficient means for purchasing the trucks or to maintain them. In fact, Shri Ganesh Narayan Kahar was hardly 18 years of age when he is said to have purchased the truck and had, admittedly, no experience of that business since he was engaged only in selling fish, being a fisherman. The rent for the trucks which was being credited in the assessee’s books of account was never utilised for personal purposes of any of the so-called truck owners. The material on record clearly discloses that the benefit of the income was enjoyed by the assessee. The entire expenses of the trucks were debited in the assessee’s books of account and the income was also credited in the assessee’s books of account and no portion of the income was credited to the accounts of any of these three truck owners. It is, therefore, clear that the trucks were being plied for the assessee and no separate account of these trucks was maintained by any of the so-called owners. It does appear from the material on record that the source of capital for the purchase of these trucks came from the assessee, their control and management vested in the assessee and the usufruct was enjoyed by the assessee. All these indicate that the assessee was the real owner who enjoyed the income from these trucks. We, therefore, agree with the decision arrived at by the Tribunal.
5. In view of the above discussion, we answer question No. 1 in the negative and against the assessee, question No. 2 in the affirmative and against the assessee, question No. 3 in the negative and against the assessee, question No. 4 in the negative and against the assessee, question No. 5 in the affirmative and against the assessee, question No. 6 in the negative and against the assessee, question No. 7 in the negative and against the assessee and question No. 8 in the negative and against the assessee.
6. The reference stands disposed of, accordingly, with no order as to costs.