1985 (8) TMI 23

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The argument advanced by Shri Ratan Lal Goyal, counsel for the assessee, is that the material on record has not been considered by the Tribunal and, as such, the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal is vitiated. His further submission is that Jagdish Prasad who is alleged to have advanced a sum of Rs. 20,000 to the assessee was examined as a witness, but he was not questioned as to his capac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... been considered or relevant material has been overlooked by the Tribunal. Learned counsel referred to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in CIT v. K.S. Kannan Kunhi [1973] 87 ITR 395 in support of his submission that a question was not put to the witness, Jagdish Prasad, about his capacity to advance the loan of Rs. 20,000. In K.S. Kannan Kunhi's case [1973] 87 ITR 395, their Lo....