TMI Blog1951 (6) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings? (2) Whether the reasons of decisions of criminal Courts are conclusive evidence against the assessee in Income-tax proceedings? (3) If the first two questions are answered in favour of the assessee, was there any evidence or was the evidence legally sufficient for the Tribunal to hold that the wrong totals in the assessee's cash book resulting in the shortage of ₹ 16,000 was done in this case at the instance of the partners of the assessee? (4) Did the wrong totals in any way affect or were likely to affect the incidence of income-tax? (5) Was the law of onus in regard to cash credits correctly laid down by the Tribunal in deciding this case and whether on the evidence produced by the assessee in this case, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (3) Difference totals stated by the assessee to be due to defalcation by Sedh Mal munib quot; 16,000 (4) Estimated income from undisclosed sources in addition to those mentioned above quot; 20,000 On appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner deleted the estimated income of ₹ 20,000 set out at (4) above and accepted the assessee's explanation in regard to most of the cash credits and reduced the unexplained items to ₹ 12,300. From the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the assessee appealed under Section 33 of the Act, claiming that the items of ₹ 12,300 and ₹ 16,000 retained by the Appellate Assis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration questions Nos. (1), (2) and (5) set out above and maintained that questions Nos. (1), (2) and (5) were questions of law arising from the orders of the Tribunal. Now, the Tribunal has not decided that the reasons of decisions of the criminal Courts were conclusive evidence against the assessee in proceedings under the Income-tax Act. In giving a decision on the item of ₹ 16,000 the Tribunal said:- Regarding the item of ₹ 16,000 there could be no question of defalcation by Sedh Mal in view of the order of the Magistrate. The assessee filed his return after the date of the order of the Magistrate and still he did not delete this item from the profit and loss account. He perhaps thought that the Income-tax Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial proceedings. In my judgment, proceedings under the Act are not judicial proceedings in the sense in which the phrase judicial proceedings is ordinarily used. A similar point arose in Seth Gurmukh Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab [1944] 12 I.T.R. 393. In that case Din Mohammad, J., (Harries, C.J., Sale, Abdur Rahman and Muhammad Munir, JJ., concurring) said:- It is obvious that it is only in respect of certain specified matters that the Income-tax authorities are invested with the powers exercisable by a civil Court and it is only for a limited purpose that a proceeding before them is declared to be deemed to be a judicial proceeding. It naturally follows that in all other matters, not covered by the section, the Inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an and Muhammad Munir, JJ., concurring) in Seth Gurmukh Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab [1944] 12 I.T.R. 393 said:- (1) An Income-tax Officer is not bound to rely on such evidence produced by the assessee as he considers to be false. (2) He can have recourse to the proviso to Section 13 even in those cases where he rejects the accounts produced by the assessee on the grounds that they are not genuine, and thus fail to represent truly his income and profits. (3) If he proposes to make an estimate in disregard of the evidence, oral or documentary, led by the assessee, he should in fairness disclose to the assessee the material on which he is going to found that estimate. (4) He is not, however, debarred from relying o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y producing the man himself to admit the transactions ascribed to him. In deciding whether the assessee had explained cash credits the Tribunal said:- If the Appellate Assistant Commissioner means that if a person was produced who admits having paid the amounts, the Income-tax Officer has no reason to make further inquiries, we must say he is entirely wrong. A person may claim to have received from his sweeper rupees five lacs. He will produce the sweeper who may admit having paid the amount. Does it mean that the explanation should be accepted and the account treated as a genuine account? The Income- tax Officer was dealing with a thoroughly dishonest assessee. The burden of proof in this case would be much greater than in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
