Cit Vs. K. Mahim

counsels: p .k. r. menon, for the revenue t.m. sreedharan & n. unnikrishnan, for the assessee head note: income tax income from undisclosed sources--addition under section 69income from benami property as also investment in benami property catch note: on facts of case, income from benami property as also investment in benami property was assessable as income of assessee as tribunal had found that property was purchased benami by assessee. case law analysis: k. mahim udma v. cit (2001)249 itr 71 (ker) followed. application: also to current assessment year. decision: in favour of revenue. income tax act 1961 s.69 in the kerala high court s. sankarasubban & kumari a.. lekshmikutty, jj. - land acquisition act, 1894 [c.a. no. 1/1894 section 54; [v.k. bali, cj, kurian joseph & k. balakrishnan nair, jj] appeal court fee payable held, court fee is liable to be paid on an ad varolem basis on compensation amount claimed in appeal. s. sankarasubban, j.these cases relate to the different assessment years. the question of law referred is 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of rs. 40,000 relating to the improvement of the mangalore property, in the year 1972-73 and the addition of rs. 15,000 for the assessment years 1973-74, 1976-77 to 1979-80 and 1981-82 to 1983-84 as the income from the said property ?' in a connected matter with regard to the same assessee, viz., it ref. nos. 13 to 16 of 2000 (reported as k. mahim udma v. cit : [2001]249itr71(ker) , it is found that the appellate tribunal had held that the property was purchased benami in the name of the assessee. the question in these cases relate to the income from this property and also the construction made in the property. in view of the fact that it has been found that the property belongs to the assessee and the construction was also made by him, the findings arrived at by the tribunal are not correct.hence, we answer the question in the negative against the assessee.