9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (10) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al income at Rs. 60,852. This order was again set aside in appeal by the AAC, vide his order dated 10th June, 1950, on the ground that the cash credits in the account of Smt. Ram Bai had not been properly investigated and the income of the accounting year had not been taken into account. Some time in the year 1946, there arose a dispute between the assessee, Shri Munshi Ram, and the other co-partners of his family regarding the business run in the name and style of Munshi Ram, B. Sc., consisting of hosiery machinery business and clothing factory which was said to be the joint business of the family. By an agreement dated 30th October, 1946, three members of the family appointed Shri Prem Nath, advocate, as an arbitrator to divide their joint business shown as Munshi Ram, B.Sc. The arbitrator gave an award on 3rd March, 1947, partitioning the joint properties amongst the three members including the business of Munshi Ram B.Sc. When the third ITO took up the assessment proceedings for the year 1945-46 afresh, Munshi Ram filed two returns on 14th April, 1953, one return showing the status of an " individual " and the income being nil, and the other in the status of " HUF " showing t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was dismissed. The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the AAC dated 24th September, 1968. The ITO also filed an appeal to the Tribunal against the AAC's orders dated 30th October, 1967, and 24th September, 1968. The assessee filed cross-objections to the ITO's appeal against the AAC's orders dated 30th October, 1967. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the ITO and so also that filed by the assessee and the cross-objections. It was contended by the assessee before the Tribunal that the cash credits of Rs. 47,200 in the account of Smt. Ram Bai appeared in the books of the family business " Munshi Ram, B.Sc. ", and in all the successive assessments made for the assessment year in question the total income determined for the business unit included the said cash credits either as a part of the business income or income from undisclosed sources and that the amount of cash credits in the name of Smt. Ram Bai were entered in the account books of the family business. Thus, it was the family which was answerable to explain the credits and if the family could not satisfactorily explain the cash credits and the source thereof, the assessee could not be assessed in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s impliedly no more hold the field. We are saying so because Shri Awasthy, the learned counsel for the revenue, took pains to take us through the assessment orders passed by the ITO and the AAC before the remand order was passed by the Appellate Tribunal to contend that there was some material before them to come to the conclusion that a sum of Rs. 47,200 which was shown in the account books of the business in the name of Smt. Ram Bai was the individual income of the assessee. It is significant to note that the moment the AAC came to the conclusion that the business in question belonged to the HUF, it would consequently follow that the account books on which reliance was being placed by the authorities, were concerning the business of the HUF. If there was any suspicious entry in the said business, it was the HUF which was liable to explain the same and if it failed to explain the same it was open to the I.T. authorities to have added the unexplained income as the income of the HUF. It cannot be disputed as a proposition of law that even if some entry is found in the books of the HUF still if there is sufficient material before the I.T. authorities to come to the conclusion that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the books of an assessee, the onus is on him to explain away the said entry bat if he fails to do that, it will be open to the I.T. authorities to fasten him with the liability of tax on account of the unexplained entry regarding the income. Even before s. 68 of the Act was enacted, it is clear that the golden rule of evidence referred to above was equally applicable. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Lakhmichand Baijnath v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 416 and of the Calcutta High Court in Mansfield & Sons v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 254. As is clear from the order of the Tribunal, copy of which is annex. M-3 there was no other material before the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the entry in the name of Smt. Ram Bai for a sum of Rs. 47,200 was the income of Munshi Ram in his individual status. As already observed, the findings recorded by the ITOs and the AAC before the remand order was passed by the Tribunal, could not be of any help to the revenue as the said findings are recorded on the basic finding that the business in question belonged to the individual status of Munshi Ram and thus the account books in which the entry in question was fou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
