Sikri J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Miscellaneous I. T. Case No. 176 of 1957, refusing to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case under section 66(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922.
(2.) In order to appreciate the points raised before us, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts. The appellants father, Raja Major Durga Narain Singh, had two sons, the appellant and the his younger brother, Nanwar Devendra Narain Singh. The appellant was born in 1929, and attained the age of majority in 1947. Up to 1952, he was a student. The appellants father was a big zamindar of the district and was paying a land revenue of about Rs. 2 lakhs a year. He enjoyed income from property, flour mill, hire of kothies, oil mill, money-lending and other sources. He died on September 2, 1944. The Income-tax Officer, for the year of assessment 1949-50, noticed that on November 3, 1947, Rs. 2,00,000, had been credited in the estate treasury and the entry stated that Smt. Rani Bahadur Sahiba had given Rs. 2 lakhs from the private money of the deceased Raja Saheb for deposit. The Income-tax Officer was not satisfied with the explanation given on behalf of the assessee and included the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs in the total income of the appellant-assessee. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner remanded the case to the Income-tax Officer with the direction that he should cross examine the manager and the Raj Mata. After the remand report, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the version of the assessee and excluded the item of Rs. 2 lakhs from the assessment. The Income-tax Officer appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal again remanded the matter to the Income-tax Officer. The Income-tax Officer gave a detailed report and after the receipt of the report, the Appellate Tribunal reversed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored the order of the Income-tax Officer.
(3.) The Income-tax Officer rejected the assessees contention that the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs was out of the private purse of the late Raja Durga Narain Singh and was not the revenue income of the assessee for the year under consideration. It is not necessary to set out the reasoning of the Appellate Tribunal. We have gone through the order and it is sufficient to state that there was material on which the Tribunal could come to the conclusion that the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs was the revenue income from undisclosed sources.;