- (1.) The following six questions form the subject-matter of this reference : "1. Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the sum of Rs. 49,599 was the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources is based on any material and/or was arrived at by ignoring the relevant materials and/or is perverse ? 2. Whether the sum of Rs. 49,599 could be treated as the assessee's income from undisclosed sources of the relevant previous year ? 3. Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the sum of Rs. 12,507 spent on legal expenses in respect of Habra land was not in connection with the assessee's business and/or was a capital expenditure is based on any material and/or was arrived at by ignoring the relevant materials and/ or is perverse ? 4. Whether the sum of Rs. 12,507 incurred on account of legal expenses for the said Harba land was an allowable deduction ? 5. Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the sum of Rs. 15,40,264 was not an allowable deduction and/or could not be allowed during the previous year is based on any material and/or were arrived at by ignoring the relevant material and/or perverse ? 6. Whether the sum of Rs. 15,40,264 was an allowable deduction during the relevant previous year ?"
(2.) In so far as questions Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, we find that there is no perversity and that the sum of Rs. 12,507 could not be treated as an allowable deduction.
(3.) In so far as questions Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, after hearing the detailed arguments of the learned advocates for the parties we find that the findings of the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal that the fixation of notional value of Re. 1 on the property in question subsequent to the passing of the decree by the civil court was wrong, is based on correct appreciation of the evidence and the materials on record and that the Revenue was justified in fixing the value of the property at Rs. 49,599. We do not see any perversity in the order of the Tribunal.;