GULTI,J. - (1.) THE assessee, Rai Dinesh Chandra, was assessed in the status of an HUF. During the assessment proceedings for the year 1965-66, the ITO noticed in his capital account cash deposit of Rs. 34,700. When called upon to explain the nature and source of the deposit, he explained that the deposits represented the sale proceeds of ornament and jewellery which he received on the partition of the bigger HUF in 1955. This Explanation was not believed by the ITO and he treated the sum of Rs. 34,7000 as the assessee's income from undisclosed sources. This finding was upheld by the AAC. On second appeal the Tribunal reversed this finding holding that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of doubt. In doing so the Tribunal relied upon its judgment in the case of the assessee's brother Rai Bimal Chandra. In that case also Rai Bimal Chandra had made cash deposits in his capital account and the explanation of the deposit was the same as given by the assessee in the instant case. The Tribunal noticed the discrepancies and the anomalies in the explanation offered by Rai Bimal Chand, but allowed the appeal by giving benefit of doubt to the assessee. When the matter came up before this Court in ITR No. 263 of 1972, a Bench of this Court held that the Tribunal had not applied its mind properly to the facts of the case and had not appraised the entire evidence on the record. The Bench further observed that when the matter went back to the Tribunal, the Tribunal should apprise of the entire material available on the record and then record a finding whether the Explanation of the assessee deserved to be accepted or not. With this observation the Tribunal answered the question which was similar to the one involved in the present case in favour of the CIT and against the assessee.
(2.) IN the present case the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court : "Whether, upon the facts and circumstances of the cases, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 34,700 from the total income of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1965- 66 ?" Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the facts of the present case are similar to the facts of the assessee's brother, Rai Bimal Chandra, and the question of law is also similar. Following the decision of this Court in the case of Rai Bimal Chandra in ITR No. 268 of 1972, we also answer the question in the negative. We also direct that when the case goes back to the Tribunal for disposal, it shall apply its mind to the evidence on the record and shall appraise the evidence properly and then to record a finding as to whether the assessee's Explanation was acceptable or not.
(3.) WE however, make no order as to costs.;