9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (4) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... untary disclosure under the Finance (No. 2) Act 1965 and that it was this amount which had been invested by her as capital for becoming a partner in the firm. The ITO was not satisfied with the explanation given and so treated the sum of Rs. 15,000 as the assessee's income from undisclosed sources. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal to the AAC. In the statement of facts before the A.A.C., it was pointed out that Smt. Phool Kumari had made a disclosure of Rs. 15,000 under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme on29th March, 1966. The said disclosure had been accepted by the Commissioner of Income-tax and the IT thereon was also paid. Thereafter it was stated that the amount had been deposited in the bank in her own name in a fixed deposit account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s wife in her own name in the bank), any addition of Rs. 15,0000 in the hands of the appellant in the asst. Yr. 1968-69 is illegal, unwarranted by law and unjustified from any angle whatsoever. (2) Thus the addition of Rs. 15,000 should have been deleted on this ground also that the said deposit does not fall during the accounting period relevant to the asst. yr. 1968-69. This is without prejudice to the other grounds of the respondent". 5. After hearing the Deplt., Rep. and the learned counsel for the assessee, I am of opinion that the order of the AAC has to be confirmed. The decision of the Delhi High Court is directly in point and is also binding since the present case is from theterritoryofDelhi. The AAC was therefore, correct in acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at least25th June, 1966. Thus the amount in question would appear to relate to an earlier accounting year. Even assuming that the onus is on the assessee to explain how Smt. Phool Kumari came into possession off the sum of Rs. 15,000 and even if it is assumed that the assessee has failed in discharging this onus, the amount can be treated as the unexplained income, if at all, of the financial yr. 1966-67 and not of the financial yr. 1967-68. In other words, the investment or the sum of Rs. 15,000 does not relate to the previous year under consideration in this appeal. Moreover, from what has been stated above, it will be seen that the investment has been made by Smt Phool Kumari. It is she who had made an investment in the firm. That she is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
