9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act against an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding unexplained income source. Analysis: The judgment pertains to an appeal filed by an assessee under section 260A of the Income-tax Act against an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The case involved a raid on the assessee's premises where incriminating documents, including bank accounts and statements not reflected in the balance-sheet, were seized. The Assessing Officer added a certain amount to the assessee's income as unexplained, which was later deleted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) but restored by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the source of income related to the amount in question, leading to the filing of the appeal. The appellant contended that the explanation offered should have been accepted, but the court found no substantial question of law to admit the appeal under section 260A. The court emphasized that determining the genuineness of an entry in the account book and proving the source of income are questions of fact. It stated that the Assessing Officer has the authority to accept or reject the explanation offered by the assessee. The High Court, in its third appellate jurisdiction, cannot re-examine the factual background of the issue as per the specific language of section 260A of the Act. The court clarified that for an appeal under section 260A, a substantial question of law must be established to warrant interference. The court found that the explanation provided by the assessee, which involved withdrawing and re-depositing cash in the same account, was not convincing. It noted that the assessee failed to account for cash used for purchasing items in its books, indicating a lack of proper record-keeping. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeals, stating that the explanation offered did not find favor with the Assessing Officer and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The judgment highlighted that the court cannot overturn the impugned finding without a substantial question of law and upheld the decision to dismiss the appeals.
|
