- (1.) MR. R.K. Yadav for MR. N.M. Ranka submits that MR. Ranka has no instructions from the assessee. None appeared for the assessee. In an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was directed to refer the following questions for the opinion of this court : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in holding that the business in the name and style of Rawat Electricals at Ramganjmandi belonged to Sri Gulzarilal Rawat and not to Shri Suresh Kumar Rawat ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of Rs. 8,000 was not an investment made by Sri Suresh Kumar Rawat in the concern of Rawat Electricals at Ramganjmandi and was made by his father, Gulzarilal ?"
(2.) IN pursuance of our direction, the Tribunal has referred the abovesaid questions with a statement of case along with the annexures. The Assessing Officer in the year 1974-75 has assessed the income of Rawat Electricals, a proprietary business in the hands of one Sri Gulzarilal Rawat and assessed the same income on protective basis in the hands of the assessee, Suresh Kumar Rawat, son of Sri Gulzarilal Rawat. During the assessment, it was also found that Suresh Kumar Rawat was born on May 6, 1957, and the business of Rawat Electricals was looked after by one Mukut Beharilal, brother-in-law of Sri Gulzarilal. Even no source has been explained of the initial expense of Rs. 8,000 by the assessee. We perused the assessment order and the appellate order in the case of the assessee. We find no reason to hold that the finding of the Tribunal regarding benami is perverse. Consequently, there is no reason to disturb the assessment in the hands of the assessee on protective basis, vis-a-vis, the income from Rawat Electricals. In the result, we answer both the questions in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.;