TMI Blog1954 (10) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m some undisclosed sources and deposited in the bank in the name of one of the partners? The question arises out of the income-tax assessment of a firm which is known as Messrs. Indo-European Machinery Company at Delhi for the year ending March, 1944, (assessment year 1944-45). The Income-tax Officer had added to the income disclosed in the account books of the firm certain items totalling ₹ 47,500. The result of the appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by the assessee firm was that he dismissed the appeal so far as it concerned ₹ 17,000 out of these items, but he accepted the appeal as regards the item now in dispute of ₹ 30,500 and deducted it. Both the assessee firm and the Income-tax Officer appealed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the 30th of March, 1944, ₹ 4,500 were drawn and a sum of ₹ 4,000 was paid into the account of Messrs. Hindson and Co., at Lahore on the 4th of April. When the case was remanded for further enquiry by the Income-tax Officer some account books were produced which showed that on the 29th of March, 1944, a sum of ₹ 21,000 had been debited to Messrs. Hindson and Co., the entry being to the effect that the money had actually been advanced to Bijay Chand at Churu on Magh Badi 5 Sambat 2001, which is a date early in January. Even on the evidence which was available when the matter was under consideration by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner he was satisfied that in fact the money had been raised by Bijay Chand in the manne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partners concerned was liable to be asked to furnish an explanation of the large sum found placed to his credit in a bank, though he has contended that the onus is not very heavy and that in this particular case a full explanation has been given and satisfactorily proved. His main argument was that in this particular case there was no material on which the Tribunal could come to a finding that this sum represented concealed income or profits. He has cited the case Narayandas Kedarnath v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central [1952] 22 I.T.R. 18, a decision of the Bombay High Court delivered by Chagla, C.J., and Tendolkar, J. The facts of that case were that certain amounts were found in the accounts of the firm standing to the credit of some ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is no dishonest evasion of payment of income-tax, but I take it that there are at least some honest assessees in this State, and we have got also to think of these honest assessees. There may be a genuine case where a partner or a stranger may bring in moneys to the credit of the firm and the partner or the stranger may have come into those moneys by thoroughly dishonest means, but it is not for the firm which is being assessed to satisfy the department that the moneys which it received from the partner or the stranger were moneys which the partner or the stranger obtained by honest means. In my opinion that would be throwing too heavy a burden upon the assessee. In the present case it has been proved beyond all doubt that Bijay Ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... furnished by the partners in question regarding other items does not in my opinion obviate the necessity for careful consideration of the explanation offered regarding this particular item and the evidence in support of it, and in fact it would seem from the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal that in dealing with this particular item it did not draw any adverse inference from other matters in dispute. In the circumstances I consider that the finding of the Tribunal on this matter is based almost entirely on mere suspicion and not based on any obvious defects in the evidence produced on behalf of the firm or on any facts proved to rebut any of this evidence. I would accordingly answer the question framed for our consideration as follows. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
