R.M.LODHA,J. - (1.) THE Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, drew up the statement of the case for the opinion of this Court on the following question: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in excluding the amount of Rs. 28,800 from the assessment of the assessee without recording a finding as to whom does this amount belong to?
(2.) THE facts are not in dispute. The assessee in her return of income for the asst. yr. 1977 -78, showed the income of Rs. 8,046. The assessment order was passed on 31st March, 1980 under Section 144 of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'Act of 1961') on an income of Rs. 85,000. The assessee's case was reopened for the asst. yr. 1977 -78 and the fresh assessment order was made by adding an income of Rs. 27,320 being unexplained investment in house construction as income from undisclosed sources to the total income of Rs. 8,050 shown by the assessee. The assessee was, thus, assessed at the total income of Rs. 35,370 for the asst. yr. 1977 -78. The assessee carried the matter in appeal. The AAC deleted the addition of Rs. 27,320. In the second appeal before the Tribunal the Tribunal noticed that in view of the finding by the AO that the assessee was not the owner of the investment, the amount of investment could not have been added to the assessee's declared income.
(3.) THE counsel for the Revenue would submit that without recording the categorical finding as to whom the amount of Rs. 27,320 belonged, the Tribunal was not justified in excluding the said amount. She relied upon the following judgments: (I) ITO v. Bachu Lai Kapooi (1966) 60 TTR 74 (SC); (II) Suresh Kumar Rawat v. CIT (1998) 146 CTR (Raj) 399 : (1995) 216 1TR 137 (Raj); and (III) CIT v. Smt. Saiaswati Devi (1995) 212 LTR 445 (Raj). ;