Sohan Lal Vs. Cit

counsels: suvir sehgal, for the assessee r.p. sawhney and rajesh bindal, for the revenue in the punjab & haryana high court jawahar lal gupta & ashutosh mohunta, jj. - haryana urban(control of rent and eviction)act,1973[har.act no.11/1973] -- section 4(2)(b): [m.m. kumar, hemant gupta, ajay & kumar mittal, jj] determination of fair rent held, the fair rent of building under the section is to be determined on the basis of rent agreed between landlord and tenant preceding the date of application. in the absence of rent agreed between parties the basic rent is required to be determined on the basis of rent prevailing in locality for a similar building or rented land on the date of application. if on the date of filing of the application under section 4 of the act for determination of fair rent, the agreed rent was still in vogue thus, it has to be regarded as the basic rent and the same would be constituted as the basis for determining fair rent. thus, where rs.500/- was paid as rent by tenant to the landlord, the same would be regarded as agreed rate of rent and the agreed rate of rent has to be regarded as basic rent within the meaning of section 4(2)(b) of the act in the process of fixing fair rent irrespective of the fact whether the lease period stipulated in a lease deed has expired.ordergupta, j.the assessee has filed this appeal with the grievance that the tribunal has erred in upholding the addition of rs. 61,000 to the income declared by the assessee in the return for the assessment year 1988-89.2. mr. sehgal, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the order passed by the assessing officer had been rightly reversed by the commissioner. however, the tribunal has wrongly accepted the appeal of the revenue. in the circumstances, the learned counsel maintains that the following question of law arises for consideration of this court :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned tribunal, amritsar bench, amritsar has erred in making addition of rs. 61,000 under section 68 of the income tax act, 1961 despite of complete evidence regarding identity of creditor, source of credits and actual transaction has been proved ?'counsels for the parties have been heard.3. the assessee had claimed that ram partap had advanced an amount of rs. 54,000 to eight different persons. that amount had been returned by the borrowers to the assessee. it was credited to the account of ram partap by the assessee. thus, the addition to the extent of rs. 54,000 is invalid. he had directly received an amount of rs. 7,000.4. a perusal of the order passed by the tribunal shows that the persons to whom ram partap had allegedly advanced the amount of rs. 54,000 were not known to him. the date on which the amount was advanced has also not been disclosed. no interest was being charged despite the fact that ram partap did not know any one of the eight persons. in this situation, the tribunal has come to a finding of fact that the transaction cannot be believed. nothing has been pointed out to show that this finding is wrong. we are satisfied that it was only a paper entry. no transaction had actually taken place.5. resultantly, we find no ground to interfere with the order impugned in this appeal. the appeal is dismissed. no costs.