1970 (10) TMI 14

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... m the accounts of the firm a small sum of Rs. 500. The assessee was invited to explain the source of deposit of Rs. 8,500. The assessee stated that that money came from dowry and sale of ornaments. The Income-tax Officer concluded that the explanation given by the assessee was not correct. Adding a sum of Rs. 2,000 to the deposit of Rs. 8,500 the Income-tax Officer inferred that a total sum of Rs. 10,500 represented the assessee's income from undisclosed sources. The same officer assessed the firm also. The firm declared a loss during the accounting period. That position was not accepted by the Income-tax Officer. He estimated the profit of the firm as Rs. 44,000. The assessee's share in the profit of the firm was fixed at Rs. 21,975. To th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... explanation offered by an assessee is unconvincing, the department can reject it and draw the inference that the amount represents income either from the sources already disclosed by the assessee or from some undisclosed source. The department does not proceed on no evidence, because the fact that there was receipt of money is itself evidence against the assessee. In Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. Commissioner of Income-tax, it was held by the Supreme Court that the burden of proving the source of cash credits is on the assessee. In the assessee's books there was a credit entry for a sum of Rs. 8,500. It was for the assessee to explain the source of this sum of Rs. 8,500. The explanation offered by the assessee was rejected by the Income-tax .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f Income-tax v. Devi Prasad Vismanath Prasad. It is true that the main ground for reversing the decision of this court by the Supreme Court was that the question discussed by the High Court did not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. None the less, the Supreme Court made certain observations on the merits of the case. Their Lordships observed on pages 196 and 197 : " There is nothing in law which prevents the Income-tax Officer in an appropriate case in taxing both the cash credit, the source and nature of which is not satisfactorily explained, and the business income estimated by him under section 13 of the Income-tax Act, after rejecting the books of account of the assessee as unreliable. This was so decided in Kale Khan Mohammad Ha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X