TMI Blog1973 (9) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ership fund, an amount of Rs. 10,000 was found credited in the account of Smt. Indra Devi and another amount of Rs. 5,000 in the account of Sri Prem Wati. These two ladies are the wives respectively of the two partners in the firm. The assessee was required to explain these two cash credits. The assessee filed affidavits of the two ladies as also their own to the effect that the motley belonged to the ladies. They also produced the evidence to show that the ladies had disclosed these amounts in pursuance of the voluntary disclosure scheme set out in the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1965 and that tax had been paid by the two ladies on these two amounts under that scheme. The Income-tax Officer held that the explanation given by the assessee was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avits filed in the case, the rejection of the affidavits by the Tribunal has to be taken as final. The question referred to us will thus have to be considered only with respect to the Tribunal's finding that the disclosures made by the two ladies could not amount to a proof that the amount belonged to them and ipso facto could not discharge the onus which lay on the assessee of explaining the cash credits. Section 24 of the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1965 (Act No. 15 of 1965), permitted the making of voluntary disclosure in respect of the amount representing income changeable to tax under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or the Income-tax Act, 1961, for any assessment year commencing on or before the 1st day of April, 1964. On such disclosur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to their respective husbands, who had brought it into the accounts of the assessee-firm. The circumstance was, therefore, not relevant for discharging the burden which lay on the assessee under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, of explaining the cash credits. As the affidavits had been discarded and the circumstances of disclosure under the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1965, and the payment of tax on the amounts disclosed was not relevant to prove the ownership of money, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee had failed to discharge the onus which lay on him to explain the source of the deposits. We, accordingly, answer the question in the negative and against the assessee. The Commissioner of Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
