Benami ownership and unexplained investment findings stand when supported by the record and not shown to be perverse.

A factual finding on benami ownership and source of investment will not be disturbed unless it is perverse or unsupported by the record. The business in the name of Rawat Electricals was found to belong to Gulzarilal Rawat, not Suresh Kumar Rawat, because the income had been assessed in Gulzarilal Rawat's hands and only protectively in the assessee's hands, while the assessee failed to establish ownership. The unexplained Rs. 8,000 investment was also treated as coming from Gulzarilal Rawat, as the assessee could not explain the source and the record supported that conclusion. Both factual findings were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the finding that the business in the name and style of Rawat Electricals belonged to Gulzarilal Rawat and not to Suresh Kumar Rawat was sustainable. (ii) Whether the amount of Rs. 8,000 was correctly treated as an investment made by Gulzarilal Rawat and not by Suresh Kumar Rawat.

Issue (i): Whether the finding that the business in the name and style of Rawat Electricals belonged to Gulzarilal Rawat and not to Suresh Kumar Rawat was sustainable.

Analysis: The record showed that the income of Rawat Electricals had been assessed in the hands of Gulzarilal Rawat and only protectively in the hands of the assessee. The business was being looked after by Mukut Beharilal, the brother-in-law of Gulzarilal Rawat, and the assessee failed to show a basis for claiming ownership. The finding of benami ownership was held not to be perverse.

Conclusion: The finding was sustained and the assessee failed on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the amount of Rs. 8,000 was correctly treated as an investment made by Gulzarilal Rawat and not by Suresh Kumar Rawat.

Analysis: The assessee did not explain the source of the initial expense of Rs. 8,000, and the materials on record supported the view that the investment came from Gulzarilal Rawat. No ground was made out to disturb the Tribunal's conclusion on this factual question.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's finding on the source of investment was upheld against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Both referred questions were answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue, leaving the assessment on a protective basis undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A factual finding on benami ownership and source of investment will not be interfered with unless shown to be perverse or unsupported by the record.

---