JUDGMENT
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.
1. The Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this court:
2. Assessment year 1960-61 :
“(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ignored relevant materials and relied on irrelevant materials in holding that the nature and source of the sum of Rs. 1,36,300 credited to the account of Smt. Laxmimoyee Sen has been satisfactorily explained by the assessee and whether acceptance by the Tribunal of the sale of ornaments to Imperial Bullion Co. was based on no evidence ?
(2) If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, then, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of the sum of Rs. 1,36,300 ?”
3. Assessment year 1961-62 :
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ignored relevant materials and relied on irrelevant materials in holding that the amount credited to the account of Smt. Laxmimoyee Sen represented interest on borrowed capital and should be allowed in computing the profits and gains of the assessee’s business ?”
4. Assessment year 1962-63 :
“(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ignored relevant materials and relied on irrelevant materials in holding that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the nature and source of the cash credit of Rs. 25,000 in the account of Smt. Laxmimoyee
Sen?
(2) If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, then, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 25,000 and in allowing the interest credited to the account of Smt. Laxmimoyee Sen ?”
5. All the three appeals were disposed of by a consolidated order dated May 31, 1974. The three reference applications were also disposed of by the Tribunal by a single order and for the sake of convenience, a consolidated statement of case has been filed.
6. The assessee is an unmarried individual, doing business in grocery. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Income-tax Officer found cash credits in the name of Smt. Laxmimoyee Sen in the assessee’s personal cash book. In support of the genuineness of the loans; the asses-see was called upon to prove the nature of the loan. The assessee stated that the loans were advanced by his sister-in-law, i.e., Smt. Laxmimoyee Sen. She had filed a declaration before the Income-tax Officer for consideration of the advances to be assessed. The Income-tax Officer, however, did not accept the explanation of the lady and the loan amounts were added back to the income of the assessee.
7. The appeal preferred against the assessment orders went up to the Tribunal. The Tribunal took into account the fact that the Commissioner had passed an order under Section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as early as in 1963. Eleven years had passed but the assessments of Laxmimoyee Sen in pursuance of the direction of the Commissioner had not been completed. It was further pointed out that the lady was examined by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for three days beginning from November 15, 1972, and ending on November 18, 1972. During these three days, the lady specifically stated that the amounts were advanced out of the sale proceeds of her gold ornaments and personal funds. There was no evidence to rebut the statement. The Tribunal also took into consideration all other facts which were placed before the Tribunal.
8. The learned advocate on behalf of the Revenue has not been able to point out what irrelevant material had been taken into consideration or which relevant material that was placed before the Tribunal had been ignored by the Tribunal.
9. Therefore, we answer the questions as under :
10. In respect of the assessment year 1960-61, we answer question No. 1
in the negative and in favour of the assesses.
11. In view of the answer given to question No. 1, question No. 2 does not
arise and need not be answered.
12. In respect of the assessment year 1961-62, we answer the question in the negative and in favour of the assessee.
13. In respect of the assessment year 1962-63, we answer question No. 1 in the negative and in favour of the assessee.
14. In view of the answer given to question No. 1, question No. 2 does not
arise and need not be answered.
15. All the questions are answered in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J.
16. I agree.