Rajesh Balia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the Revenue. No one has appeared for the respondents in spite of service.
(2.) THE Tribunal has referred the following question of law at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jodhpur, arising out of its order in I. T. A. No. 1708/JP of 1991, for the assessment year 1988-89 for the opinion of this court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in directing to delete the addition of Rs. 1,61,247 from the income of the assessee-firm when the Tribunal has given the finding that the said amount was income of the assessee-firm ?" The facts which led to this reference application are that the respondent-assessee is a registered firm engaged in the business of sale and purchase of cereals, pulses, oil seeds, cotton and other agricultural commodities. During the assessment proceedings it was found by the Assessing Officer that the firm has diverted its profit to four different persons who arc relatives of the partners of the firm, namely, Smt. Santosh, Shri Ram Pratap, Shri Rajkumar Goyal and Shri Sushil Kumar, and made addition of that sum in the income of the assessee-firm as its assessable income. The said order was affirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on September 3, 1991. On further appeal, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, came to a categoric conclusion that the aforesaid amount totalling to Rs. 1,61,247 was income of the firm derived from its own calculated account and liable to assessment. However, it has still deleted the above sum from the income of the assessee on the ground that the four persons named above have in their individual capacity been assessed in respect of the said income in their respective cases. This controversy in short is clearly reflected in the terms of question. We are of the opinion that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Jain Brothers v. Union of India [1970] 77 ITR 107, it should be no more in doubt that the assessment of different persons in respect of the very same income will not absolve one from liability to be taxed de hors the finding recorded in one proceeding with reference to the finding recorded in somebody else's assessment. If in the case of A it has been found that A has earned income, then the obligation is on A to be assessed and pay tax on the income earned by him. In the present case, it has been found by the Tribunal that the income actually belongs to the assessee. Therefore, there was no impediment in levying tax on the income of the assessee irrespective of whether some other persons have already been made to submit returns in respect of the income and have been assessed on the basis of the declaration submitted by them. We are not concerned with the remedies which other persons may follow. We accordingly hold that the Tribunal was not justified in directing to delete the addition of Rs. 84,769 and 22,127 from the income of the assessee-firm which the Tribunal has found to be the income of the assessee-firm and not of the other persons named above. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. ;