9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (11) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nant Lal Om Parkash, carries on business in arhat and foodgrains at Hansi. During the previous year relating to the assessment year 1959-60, the Income Tax Officer found a sum of ₹ 20,000 as deposit in the name of Rameshwar Dass in its books of account. He was not satisfied about the genuineness of this deposit and called upon the assessee to produce necessary evidence in support of that entry. The assessee pleaded that this amount was deposited by one Rameshwar Dass who was a cashier of the Co-operative society, Puthi Mangal Khan. Rameshwar Dass was examined by the Income Tax Officer at the instance of the assessee and he gave the following statement : "That I am the treasurer of the co-operative society of Puthi Mangal Khan. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplication (Income-tax Case No. 10 of 1964) under section 256(2) of the Act and this court directed the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to draw up the statement of the case and refer the following question for opinion : "Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, there was any material to hold that the cash credit of ₹ 20,000 in its the account of Rameshwar Dass was income of the assessee from undisclosed sources ? The only point argued before the Appellate Tribunal was that the amount of ₹ 20,000 had been unjustifiably included in the income of the assessee. The Appellate Tribunal considered in detail the explanation furnished by the assessee supported by the statement of Rameshwar Dass but rejected the same. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the amount of ₹ 20,000 was not deposited by Rameshwar Dass but had been brought into the books by the partners of the firm themselves and it was rightly considered as the income of the firm. This is a finding of fact based on the material on the record and the legitimate inferences which can be drawn form the facts found. It cannot be said that there was no material on the record to hold that the cash credit of ₹ 20,000 in the account of Rameshwar Dass was the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. The learned counsel for the assessee has relied on a Division Bench Judgment of the Assam High Court in Nabadwip Chandra Roy v. Commissioner of Income Tax, in which one of the poi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he third party does not belong to that individual but it belongs to the assessee." The learned judges of the Assam High Court accepted this principle and applied it to the facts of the case before them and held that : "........... the department had produced no material whatsoever counteracting the version given by the assessee. The assessee had further produced some materials in support of his statement that the money belonged to his son-in-law. There is no material by which the version is directly or indirectly negatived except that the department did not believe the materials produced by the assessee. This would only means that the onus of proof was placed on the assessee and the department did not share it. There is no mate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cashier from the co-operative society and he would certainly not have taken any risk of giving the money to the assessee-firm with which he had no previous dealings. It is also not understood what benefit did not assessee-firm derive by this deposit, alleged to have been made by Rameshwar Dass, and what was the reason for entering into this transaction. The only inference available is that the amount shown as deposit in the name of Rameshwar Dass on July 12, 1958, was the money of the partners of the assessee-firm itself. The learned counsel for the assessee then relied on a judgment of a division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Kishan Das Munnu Lal v. Commissioner of Income Tax, which is also distinguishable on facts as the Assa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue before the Tribunal was that the department had proved by sufficient material that the deposit of ₹ 20,000 shown in the name of Rameshwar Dass was not genuine and that the Tribunal itself had held in its order on the assessees appeal against the assessment that : "The revenue has succeeded in proving that the deposit in the name of Rameshwar Dass is not a genuine one. In the circumstances, we uphold the addition of ₹ 20,000 on the ground that it represented the assessees income from undisclosed sources of the previous year." This contention of the department was not accepted by the Tribunal and an application under section 66(1) of the Act was made for referring the following question of law to this court for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
