K.S.Hegde, J.

(1) THESE are appeals byspecial leave. The only question that arises for decision in these appeals is whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the tribunal that. the gifts alleged to have been made by the assessee to his brother Brij Lal Lohia and his nephew, Nandkishore Lohia, are genuine gifts

(2) IN these appeals we are concerned with the assessments of the assessee for the years 1947-48, 1948-49, 1949-50, 1950-51 and 1951-52.

(3) THE assessee is an individual. On 12/07/1943, it is said the assessee made a gift of Rs. 5,11,101.00 to his brother Brijial Lohia and another sum of Rs. 2,50,000.00 to Nandkishore 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. This question came up for consideration before the authorities under the Act while dealing with the assessment of the assessee for the years 1945-46 and 1946-47. 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 the finding of facts. When the matter was brought in appeal to this court in Kanhaiyalal Lohia deceased by his legal representation Mahabir Prasad Khemka and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengali this court also reused 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 final fact-finding 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. In those cases the assessee adduced considerable additional evidence and on the basis of that evidence the Tribunal after taking into consideration the decisions rendered by the Tribunal in the previous proceeding came to the conclusion that the gifts in question are genuine gifts. In arriving at that conclusion the Tribunal had taken into consideration various circumstances and those circumstances as set out by the tribunal are as follows :

"(A) On going through the capital account and the wealth statement of the assessee, the tribunal found that before making this gift to the said persons the total amount standing to his credit were as follows-

(I) A sum of Rs. 16,79,223.00 and Rs. 61,968.00 as the balance left over to his credit in his Profit and Loss Account.

(II) A sum of Rs. 6,32,804.00 being his credit balance in his capital account in the partnership business styled Kanailal Lohia (Jute Press). These items, namely, in (i) and (ii) taken together worked out to Rs. 23,73,995.00.

(III) House properties whose value had been estimated at Rs. 19,00,00.00. .

(IV) Besides those the assessee had certain further assets which had remained undisclosed till the year 1951, valued at over Rs. 20,00,000.00."

(4) THE tribunal accordingly held that the assessees financial position was such that he was capable of making gifts to his brother and nephew of Rs. 7,61,101.00. Proceeding further the tribunal observed:

"(B) The donee after having received the gifts had deposited the said amounts with the National City Bank of New York, which bank had certified that it was the account of a firm whose partners were Messrs. Brijlal Lohia and Nandkishore Lohia and it was those persons only who were authorised to sign for and on behalf of the said firm. There were other banks also with whom the said two partners of the said firm had opened upaccounts and they had also certified to the same effect.

(C) Affidavit dated 8/09/19