9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (6) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ference under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (shortly called' " the Act "). The following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, for the opinion of this court : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the addition of Rs. 10,060 under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was warranted ? " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that S. P. Bhandary was the owner of the watches. He could not prove the same. He could not produce any evidence to lend credence to his contention. On the contrary he had admitted before the Customs authorities at the time of seizure of the watches that lie was the owner of it. So the ITO added the sum of Rs. 10,060 to the income of the assessee as income from other sources. The assessee took u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sources. It seems to us that the acquittal by the criminal court for not proving the offence under s. 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act is irrelevant for the purpose of the I.T. Act. The assessee had conceded at the earliest that be had purchased the watches seized by the authorities. In the absence of any other acceptable evidence, it must be held that he was the real owner of the watches and not S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he whole of the price money of the watches should be considered as a loss while computing the income of the assessee. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Piara Singh [1980] 124 ITR 40. In that case the assessee was a smuggler. The question was whether he was entitled to deduction under s. 10(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
