Case: Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal Vs. Brij Lal Lohia and Mahabir Prasad Khemka (Executors of The Late Kanailal Lohia)

The assessee is an individual. On July 12, 1943, it is said the assessee made a gift of Rs. 5, 11, 101 to his brother, Brijlal Lohia, and another sum of Rs. 2, 50, 000 to Nand Kishore Lohia, his nephew. Thereafter, the assessees brother and nephew are said to have started a new firm dealing in jute. At about the same time the assessee stopped his business. The assessee was also dealing in jute. The question for consideration is whether the gifts alleged to have been made by the assessee were genuine gifts. The question came up for consideration before the authorities under the Act while dealing with the assessment of the assessee for the years6 and. Therein, on the basis of the material before them the Tribunal held that the gifts in question are not genuine gifts. The High Court did not interfere with the finding of the Tribunal on the basis that it was a finding of facts. When the matter was brought in appeal to this court in Kanhaiyalal Lohia (deceased by his legal representative Mahabir Prasad Khemka) v. Commissioner of, this court also refused to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal observing that the question whether the gifts were real was a matter within the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal as the finalg authority. The question whether those very gifts were genuine or not again came up for consideration before the authorities under the Act while dealing with the assessments with which we are concerned in this case.

Reasoning: On going through the Tribunals order, we are satisfied that the finding of the Tribunal cannot be said to be a perverse finding. That finding being finding of facts, it was not open to the High Court nor is it open to this court to interfere with that findingThe fact that in the earlier proceedings the Tribunal took a different view of those deeds is not a conclusive circumstance. The decision of the Tribunal reached during those proceedings does not operate as res judicata. As seen earlier there was a great deal more evidence before the Tribunal during the present proceedings, relating to those gift deeds