TMI Blog1982 (7) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the applicant had not explained the source of its acquisition ? (2) Whether the finding that the sum of Rs. 1,06,066 (Rupees one lakh six thousand and sixty-six) represented income of the applicant is based on suspicion, surmises and/or improper consideration of the evidence on record and is, therefore, unjustified in law ? " The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : The assessee is a Hindu undivided family (HUF) and one Kacharulal Tejmal, after whom the HUF is named, was the karta of the HUF. The assessment year with which we are concerned is the assessment year 1962-63 and the relevant previous year was the Samwat year 2017, which ended on 8th November, 1961. In resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ------- 1,45,465." --------- This shows that in all, as on 8th November, 1961, there were 268 fully pressed cotton bales pledged by the assessee in its said accounts, and the total value thereof was Rs. 1,45,465. According to the assessee, these goods pledged with the banks did not belong to the assessee but to Ramanlal Company. However, according to the books of account of Ramanlal Company, the stocks of that firm as on 8th November, 1961, were as below : ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bales Bojas Raw Cotton No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e pledged with them. As the investment of the excess stock could not be explained by the assessee, the ITO added the value thereof to the income of the assessee under the provisions of s. 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961. It may be mentioned here that s. 69 provides that where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the investments, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the ITO, satisfactory, the value of the investments may be deemed to be the income of the assessee of such financial year. It is quite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it can never be suggested that, in these circumstances, there was no nexus between the assessee and the said goods. The next submission put forward by Mr. Munim, by way of an alternative submission, was that the assessee had on the evidence prima facie established that the said goods belonged to Ramanlal Company and that the burden was on the Revenue to show that this explanation was false. This argument is also without any substance. Besides the bare word of the assessee, nothing was produced before the authorities concerned to show that the said goods belonged to Ramanlal Company. No affidavit was produced of any of the other partners of Ramanlal Company to show that these goods belonged to Ramanlal Company. Stocks shown in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
