TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (11) TMI 46
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the properties of the assessee or of the wife of Dharamdas Agrawal, namely, Smt. Manikbai The question arose for the first time in the assessment year 1957-58 and was decided against the assessee. In the subsequent years, the income from the aforesaid properties was treated as the income of the assessee and taxed as such without any demur or objection on the part of the assessee. It appears that in the year 1965-66, the question was again raked up by the assessee. These miscellaneous cases are with regard to the assessment years between 1965-66 to 1974-75. In various orders passed both under the Income-tax and Wealth-tax Acts, the aforesaid properties have been treated to be the properties of the assessee, as was done in the assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Manikbai is taxable in the hands of the Hindu undivided family? " It would thus be seen that the aforesaid question and question No. of M.C.Cs. Nos. 426 of 1981 and 441 of 1981 are substantially the same. Question No. 2 in these two cases is, however, an additional question which has to be answered in these two cases only. We shall first take up question No. 2 of M.C.Cs. Nos. 426 of 1981 and 441 of 1981. It has been urged by learned counsel for the assessee that the Tribunal committed an error in not considering the subsequent events and further evidence produced by the assessee and passing orders on the basis of the orders passed in the earlier assessment years. Having gone through the order of the Tribunal, we find it difficult....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this connection, it may be pointed out that for the assessment year 1957-58, the houses in question were treated as the properties of the assessee. In the subsequent years, as has been pointed out by the Tribunal, at any rate up to 1964-65, even though the income from this property was admittedly assessed in the hands of the assessee, it did not demur or raise any protest. The Tribunal has further relied on an admission made by the applicant-assessee in the earlier proceedings before the Tribunal that it was the assessee which was the real owner of these house properties which stood in the name of the wife of its karta. In CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC), during the assessment year 1942-43, the assessee claimed that the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, after objecting to the inclusion of that income in his total income in the assessment year 1942-43, is undoubtedly a circumstance which the taxing authorities were entitled to take into consideration, in the absence of any satisfactory explanation. It has been urged by learned counsel for the assessee that from the statement of the case, it does not appear as to whether the assessee in the instant case, had also shown the income from house properties during the years up to 1964-65 treating it as the property of the assessee. It is true that the statement of the case is not clear on this point either way. This much, however, is clear that during all those years, the income from the property was admittedly assessed treating it to be the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....est evidence that an opposing party can rely upon, and though not conclusive, is decisive of the matter, unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the decision of the Tribunal, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in regard to the aforesaid question, is erroneous. Learned counsel for the assessee then urged that in a subsequently instituted suit, it has been held that the properties in question were the properties of Smt. Manikbai and that in first appeal, the said finding of the trial court has been upheld by this court also, even though a letters patent appeal is pending against the judgment of this court in first appeal. On its basis, it was urged that till t....