R.M.Sahai, J. - (1.) This is an application under Section 256(2) of I.T. Act for calling a question of law arising out of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Although three questions were raised, yet the learned counsel for the assessee has mainly argued for question No. 2, which runs thus : "Whether, on the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the property purchased in the name of Sri Ayodhya Prasad, individual, on November 16, 1971, was actually purchased by the HUF with the view that the burden lies on the applicant to prove otherwise ?"
(2.) Normally in application under Section 256, no reasons are required to be recorded but as my brother does not share my view that a question of law does arise and is inclined to record independent reasons and dismiss the application, I am left with no option except to notice in brief why I think that the application should be allowed.
(3.) The assessee is an HUF. In respect of the assessment year 1972-73, the ITO reopened proceedings as he was of opinion that the house purchased on November 16, 1971, in the name of Ayodhya Prasad, who was the karta, was in fact, purchased by the undisclosed funds of the assessee. An affidavit was filed by the son of Ayodhya Prasad before the ITO that his father had agricultural property and money-lending business from which he had independent income. It was also stated that his mother had savings. And the house was purchased from the funds so available.;