M.P. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS income -tax reference case arises out of the order passed by the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, rejecting the application under Section 256(1) of the Income -tax Act, 1961, requiring the Tribunal to refer the following questions of law to the High Court : "1. Whether, the learned Tribunal was right in law in not excluding the old gold ornaments of Smt. Amrit Bai, wife of the assessee, weighing 291.500 gms. from the assessment of the assessee and holding its value as unexplained investment by the assessee when such ornaments were found in the possession of Smt. Amrit Bai, her statements were recorded, the claim was accepted by the Commissioner of Income -tax in the order under Section 132(12), Smt. Amrit Bai was assessed to wealth -tax for the assessment years 1981 -82 to 1987 -88 and onwards and there was no evidence that the assessee made investment during the previous year under assessment ?
(2.) WHETHER, the learned Tribunal was right in law in not excluding the old gold ornaments of children of the family weighing 95 -720 gms. from the assessment of the assessee and holding its value as unexplained investment by the assessee when such ornaments were found in the possession of the children or/and their parents and the inventories contain items of the children and there was no evidence that the assessee made investment during the previous year under assessment ? Whether, the learned Tribunal was right in law in rejecting the claim of the assessee regarding ornaments of the children when such claim was made before the Assessing Officer, objection was raised before the Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals) (who ?) has not expressed any opinion on such ground and the said ground remained undisposed of by the Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals) ? Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in not excluding the old gold ornaments of the assessee individual weighing 48 -440 gms. from the assessment of the assessee and holding its value as unexplained investment by the assessee when the Commissioner of Income -tax (Administration) in order under Section 132(12) gave a finding that ornaments of the assessee individual was at 1,310 gms. and not at 1,261.560 gms. and wealth -tax assessments for the assessment years 1981 -82 and 1982 -83 were completed assessing ornaments at 1,310 gms., and there was no evidence that the assessee made investment during the previous year under assessment ? Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in not excluding the old gold ornaments weighing 15 tolas from the assessment of the assessee individual when evidence was adduced that Smt. Subhadra, daughter of the assessee, was married in the lifetime of the assessee's father and she had been given ornaments by the assessee's father ? Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount to be added under Section 69 shall be different than the value of unexplained asset computed or computable under the Wealth -tax Act ?
(3.) WHETHER the learned Tribunal was justified in law in holding 512.460 gms. of old ornaments as unexplained, in computing its value at Rs. 93,054 and in sustaining addition of such amount under Section 69 of the Act ? Whether the learned Tribunal had material to hold that ornaments of wife of the assessee, children of the family, etc., found in different rooms in the ancestral house remained unexplained and its value was assessable in the individual hands of the assessee under Section 69 of the Act ? Whether the findings given by the learned Tribunal in para. 13 of the appellate order are not perverse and have not been vitiated in law ? ;