9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (3) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a number of questions referred to it under section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in favour of the revenue and against the assessee-appellant. At the time the special leave was granted, the leave was restricted to the answers given by the High Court to questions (1)(a) and (1)(b), which read as under : " (1)(a). Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, it was legal to treat Rs. 10,000, an item of cash credit standing in the name of the wife of one of the partners of the assessee-firm, as the profit or income out of concealed sales. (1)(b). If the answer to (a) above is in the affirmative, was the enhancement of the gross turnover by Rs. 1,00,000 on the basis that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above amount had been lying with her, and had been deposited by her, during the year in question with the firm. The appellate authority rejected this explanation. The same view was taken in second appeal by the Board of Revenue. At the instance of the assessee, the two questions reproduced above, along with some other questions, were referred to the High Court. The High Court, while answering the above-mentioned questions against the assessee-appellant, referred to the fact that the explanation offered by the assessee in respect of the amount of rupees ten thousand was not reasonable. It was accordingly inferred that the amount reflected profits of the business of the assessee. Those profits, in the opinion of the High Court, arose out of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n order to impose liability upon the appellant-firm for payment of sales tax by treating that amount as profits arising out of undisclosed sales of the appellant, two things had to be established, (i) the amount of Rs. 10,000 was the income of the appellant-firm and not of Kanji Deosi or his wife, and (ii) that the said amount represented profits from income realised as a result of transactions liable to sales tax and not from other sources. The onus to prove the above two ingredients was upon the department. The fact that the appellant-firm or Kanji Deosi and his wife failed to adduce satisfactory or reasonable explanation with regard to the source of Rs. 10,000 would not in the absence of some further material have the effect of discha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
