K.C.AGRAWAL, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, for quashing the order of the Opposite Parties nos. 1 to 3, relating to the asst. yrs. 1964-65, 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70. It appears that in the asst. yr. 1964-65 an addition of Rs. 10,000 was made by the ITO by his order dt. 24th Feb., 1971 on account of unexplained investment. The petitioner perferred an appeal before the AAC, Bareilly.
(2.) IN the appeal, the petitioner contended that part of the amount of Rs. 10,000 mentioned above had been obtained by the petitioner from the sale of a jeep Sri P.K. Khanna, an ex-Member of Parliament. Although this pela was not taken by the petitioner before the ITO but in order to do justice to the petitioner, the AAC directed the ITO to call Sri P.K. Khanna and record his statement to find out whether any jeep was sold by the petitioner to him before the investment made by the petitioner in the property. Persuant to the aforesaid Order of remand made by the AAC the ITO summoned Sri P.K. Khanna but he did not appear. It however, appears that the petitioner changed his case before the ITO and stated before him that the person to whom the jeep was sold was one sri Vishwanath Khanna resident of Mohalla Chamkani Bahadur at Shahjahanpur and not P.K. Khanna. It was also sought to be explained that since the petitioner was an old man of 87 years of age, he had committed a mistake by giving the name of Viswanath Khanna as P.K. Khanna. The matter came up before the AAC. He did not accept the new evidence, which the petitioner intended to adduce and finding that the petitioner had filed to explain the investment made in the construction of the house, he rejected the appeal and confirmed the order of the ITO. Against the aforesaid order the petitioner went in revision to the CIT. The CIT also dismissed the revision and maintained the orders passed by the authorities mentioned above. Hence this writ petition. Sri K.M.L. Hajela, counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that all the three authorities committed an error in not accepting the case of the petitioner that the jeep had been sold by the petitioner, to Vishwanath Khanna and in holding that the petitioner had failed to prove the same. The contention has no substance the authorities were perfectly justified in not accepting the case of the petitioner inasmuch as it was unbelievable that the petitioner could have committed the mistake like the one existing in the present case. If the petitioner had really sold the jeep to Vishwanath Khanna he would have mentioned the name earlier in the appeal before the CIT. There was no possibility of such a mistake being committed by him that instead of maintaining the name of Vishwanath Khanna he would have stated the same to be P.K. Khanna. What is more important is that P.K. Khanna was stated to be an Ex-Member of Parliament whereas V.N. Khanna was an ordinary citizen. If the petitioner, had sold the jeep to Vishwanath Khanna he could not have possibly meant that he was ex-Member of Parliament. Accordingly the submission made has no substance. In fact, this writ petition is concluded by findings of fact arrived at by the subordinate authorities. It is not open to us to correct the error of fact under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs. *****;