Satish Chandra, C.J.
1. M/s. Chhidama Lal Bishambhar Nath was assessed for the year 1966-67 in the status of HUF. In the assessment year 1968-69, Sri Lallu Mal, who was a karta of the aforesaid HUF, was assessed in the status of an individual. The same situation prevailed in the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71. After the assessments for the first two years were completed, the ITO noticed that there were certain fixed deposits in the Punjab National Bank in the names of the wife and minor son of Lallu Mal. He reopened the proceedings under Section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961, and after hearing Sri Lallu Mal, as a representative of the HUF as well as in his individual capacity, he held that the deposits were the income of the assessee. He assessed the amounts of the fixed deposits in the hands of Lallu Mal,
2. Lallu Mal went up in appeal, but failed. He filed a further appeal before the Tribunal but remained unsuccessful. At his instance, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law for our opinion :
'Whether there was any material on the record for the Tribunal to hold that the deposits in dispute by the wife and minor child of the assessee were the income of the assessee liable to tax in respect of the assessment years 1966-67, 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71 ?'
3. The position is that for the year 1966-67, an amount of Rs. 10,000 was deposited on August 9, 1965, in the name of the minor son, Suresh Chand, and on November 4, 1965, an amount of Rs. 10,000 was deposited in the bank in the name of the wife, Smt. Chandrawati. During the accounting period relevant for the year 1968-69, there were three deposits : on 9th August, 1967, Rs. 10,000 in the name of the wife, and on 7th March, 1968, Rs. 5,000 in the name of the wife and Rs. 10,000 in the name of the minor son. In the assessment year 1969-70, the wife purchased a property for a sum of Rs. 5,000. During the assessment year 1970-71, a further sum of Rs. 5,000 was deposited in the name of the wife, Smt. Chandrawati. These facts are not disputed. The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities have found that the wife as well as the minor son of the assessee had no independent source of income whatsoever. The assessee as also the minor son have not adduced any evidence. It has been averred that the wife and the minor son were dependent on and supported by the assessee. The Tribunal noticed that it is not a case of casual deposit but a regular flow of deposits in the names of the wife and the minor son.
4. The wife filed a certificate that the deposits were made up of gifts received by her from her parents from time to time. She further stated that it was not possible for her to give further details in support of it. The income-tax authorities have disbelieved this, as it has been found to be too vague and is not supported by any details or materials. It is evident that there was ample evidence on the record to sustain the finding of the Tribunal that the deposits in dispute in the names of the wife and minor son were really the income of the assessee.
5. The learned counsel for the assessee invited our attention to the circumstance that Lallu Mal was assessed in the status of an HUF in the assessment year 1966-67 but from the year 1968-69 onwards he was assessed as an individual because there was a partition in the family. After partition, a share must have gone to the wife and the minor son. It was hence probable that the wife and minor son had a source of income from the assets and properties received by them at the partition and from which these deposits may have come out. But unfortunately this explanation was in fact given up by the wife and in the certificate given by her she claimed the deposits to have come out of the gifts received from her parents from time to time. If it had been a fact that the money deposited in the bank were out of the income from the assets and properties received by them in the partition, the wife should have given a certificate to this effect. But noone ever whispered it even. We cannot hence say that there was no material on the record to sustain the finding of the Tribunal.
6. In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax is entitled to his costs, which are assessed at Rs. 200.