2001 (3) TMI 71

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... learned counsel for the Revenue. None has appeared for the respondent in spite of service having been effected before May 15, 1998. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, on an application moved by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jodhpur, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has referred the following question of law arising out of its order in I.T.A. No. 1773 an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... computed the profit in each transaction which comes to Rs. 1,08,471 and has held that the assessee diverted profits in different sums stated in the assessment order to the aforesaid persons, added the same to the income of the assessee which amounted in total Rs. 1,08,471. These additions were confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Tribunal though found that all the transactio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The appeal filed by the Revenue I.T.A. No. 1773/JP of 1991, being on a different issue is not relevant for our purposes. However, to put the record straight, the Tribunal rejected the appeal of the Revenue and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee as aforesaid. 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 c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct whether some other persons have already submitted the returns in respect of the income and have also been assessed on the basis of declaration submitted by them. We are not concerned with the remedies which the other person may follow. Accepting the assessee's contention would result in the startling consequence of accepting that where a person designedly diverts his profits to other persons....