TMI Blog1975 (5) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of the Tribunal that the sum of Rs. 10,000 with interest thereon was the assessee's income from undisclosed sources was perverse on the facts and in the circumstances of this case ? " A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the revenue to the effect that this question which was reframed and made absolute at the time of the hearing of the rule should not be answered inasmuch as the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at its finding about that loan by overlooking or ignoring a crucial fact or document, namely, the failure of the ITO to verify the said income-tax file number and/or signature of Sri Surana as noted in his said certificate ? 3. Whether, in view of the facts, circumstances and evidence of the case, the Tribunal could lawfully hold that the addition of the loan of Rs. 10,000 with interest thereon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts found as appearing from the statement of the case in annexure thereto are, inter alia, as follows: (a) The assessment year involved is 1962-63. (b) The assessee is an individual and a dealer in scrap iron. (c) During the assessment for the said assessment year it was found that the assessee had obtained three cash loans one of which was for a sum of Rs.10,000 from one Tarachand Surana. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that he had discharged the primary or initial onus laid upon him by furnishing a certificate from the creditor which contained the income-tax file number of the creditor. The Tribunal looked into the document and found that there was no statement from the creditor that he was an assessee under the Income-tax Act or that the number stated in the docum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s follows : Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SC), Tolaram Daga v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 632 (Assam), Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 723 (Bom) and Banshidar Onkarmal v. CIT [1953] 23 ITR 353 (Orissa). The above authorities cited do not materially advance the case of the assessee. The propositions laid down in the above cases do not apply in the facts of the case be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
