TMI Blog1982 (7) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tners of M/s. Ratilal Manekji have filed the affidavits that no interest was receivable or payable ? " The material facts giving rise to this reference briefly are as follows: The assessee is an individual and the assessment year in question is 1973-74. Initially the ITO assessed the income of the assessee for the year at Rs. 737. The Commissioner, however, directed the ITO to make the assessment afresh after taking into consideration the fact that though the assessee had been making investments in a firm, M/s. Ratilal Manekji, and the credit balance at the beginning of the accounting year stood at Rs. 4,04,588, no interest was shown to have accrued on that amount. When the matter went back to the ITO, the assessee placed reliance on tw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he surrounding circumstances and the test of human probability. Certain facts in this connection assume considerable importance. Firstly, it is important to note that the appellant is the mother of the partners of the debtor-firm. The mother and sons are living together. Though, in the eye of law, the two are different entities, practicality of the situation cannot be lost sight of. Secondly, it is of relevance to note that the interest was charged up to 1972-73 right from 1967-68 in all the years; except for the year in question, the same was again charged in all succeeding years. There should, therefore, be some special reason for not charging the interest in this particular year only. The only reason as stated is the offer of the firm to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that the letters alleged to have been exchanged between the firm and the assessee were not genuine. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence at the instance of the assessee, the aforesaid question has been referred to this court. Shri Chitaley, learned counsel for the assessee, contended that the Tribunal could not have come to the conclusion that the letters filed by the assessee were not genuine in the face of the affidavits filed on behalf of the assessee showing that no interest was received by or payable to the assessee. Learned counsel relied on the decisions in Mehta Parikh Co. v. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 181 (SC), Sohan Lal Gupta v. CIT [1958] 33 ITR 786 (All) and Dilip Kumar Roy v. CIT [1974] 94 ITR 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... party. The Supreme Court, therefore, held that there was no material whatsoever to justify the finding of the Tribunal. The decision in [1956] 30 ITR 181, cannot be construed to lay down the proposition that unless the deponents are cross examined, the affidavits cannot be rejected. That decision lays down that if there is no material whatsoever on record for doubting the veracity of the statements made in the affidavits and if the deponents have also not been subjected to cross-examination for bringing out the falsity of their statements, then the Tribunal would not be justified in doubting the correctness of the statements made by the deponents in the affidavits. The finding arrived at in such a case would, according to the Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
