TMI Blog1986 (7) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation. The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on the business of jewellery.It maintains the account books on the mercantile system which have been produced before the tax authorities from time to time. The income-tax assessments for various assessment years including the year in question have been made on the basis of profit and loss account, balance-sheet and other records maintained and produced before the tax authorities. It is stated that in the course of its business, the petitioner firm received sum of Rs. 15,000 by cash on October 21, 1978, as loan from Shri Santosh Kumar Sethi, residing at 26, Station Road, Giridih (Bihar), who is said to be a native resident of Rajasthan and a person known to the partners of the assessee-f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment year 1979-80. Independent verification was made by the Income-tax Officer, Giridih. A copy of the letter of the depositor to the Income-tax Officer, Jaipur, along with the copy of the assessment order has been marked as annexure-B. However, the Income-tax Officer, Jaipur, was of the view that as the confirmation was unattested, signed by one Shri Santosh Kumar Sethi in Hindi and the reply given, vide letter dated December 21, 1981, in English by S. K. Jain and another letter dated January 22, 1982, was not signed by Shri S. K. Jain and there being no affidavit of the depositor, his identity had not been proved. He, accordingly, treated this amount of Rs. 15,000 as unexplained and assessed it as income from undisclosed sources in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee had not discharged the onus on it to prove the creditworthiness of the said creditor. It has been urged that since the person depositing the amount has been identified and the depositor is the assessee in Bihar and in his account books, the depositor has shown to have deposited Rs. 15,000 with the applicant assessee-firm, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the assessee-firm has failed to discharge the onus under section 68 of the Act. It has been stressed that the depositor is not related to any of the partners of the firm and, therefore, this is another reason why the deposit should have been accepted by the Income-tax Officer, Jaipur, while assessing the assessee-firm in the relevant year. It has also been po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... point of double taxation was being raised for the first time in this court and, therefore, the applicant was estopped from raising it now when it was not raised earlier. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and have gone through the various documents on record. Taking the last item first, it is evident from the assessment order of the Income-tax Officer (annexure-D) at para. 6, in which it has been mentioned that the assessee had stressed that " the amount of Rs. 15,000 cannot be taxed once again in the hands of the assessee ". This shows that this point was raised even before the learned Income-tax Officer. In this case, the person who deposited the amount of Rs. 15,000 has been identified and more so, is an assessee o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he tax on the same amount of Rs. 15,000 at Jaipur. This shows that the same amount of Rs. 15,000 has been taxed twice; once by the Income-tax Officer, Giridih, and again by the Income-tax Officer, Jaipur. Our attention has been drawn by learned counsel for the applicant to Fakhri Automobiles v. CIT [1980] 126 ITR 417 (Raj). This was a case where the assessee-firm carried on the business of petrol, diesel, kerosene, etc., at Banswara. In its cash book, a sum of Rs. 14,025.75 was shown against the purchase price of 18,000 litres of diesel. In respect of the purchase, the firm did not obtain the purchase voucher, but a partner of the firm filed an affidavit confirming the transaction. The Income-tax Officer assessed Rs. 14,025.75 to be income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of unexplained investment to Rs. 23,400 which was confirmed by the Tribunal. An application under section 256(1) of the Act was dismissed by the Tribunal. On an application under section 256(2), it was held by this court that the case involved matters relating to the proper interpretation of the provisions of sections 52(2), 55A and 69B of the Act. In the case of Asharam Saboo Sons v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 117 (MP), it was held that whether, on the facts, the Tribunal found that the registration could or could not be refused to a firm in view of sections 184 and 185 of the Act and whether an inference that a firm is genuine or not could or could not be drawn are questions of law and fact fit for reference to the High Court. Learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
