Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 1962 (8) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1962 (8) TMI 81 - HC - Income Tax

  1. 2017 (3) TMI 1521 - HC
  2. 2011 (12) TMI 394 - HC
  3. 2004 (1) TMI 55 - HC
  4. 2023 (6) TMI 215 - AT
  5. 2021 (12) TMI 811 - AT
  6. 2021 (11) TMI 318 - AT
  7. 2021 (10) TMI 1064 - AT
  8. 2021 (3) TMI 516 - AT
  9. 2021 (1) TMI 1020 - AT
  10. 2020 (10) TMI 1390 - AT
  11. 2020 (11) TMI 364 - AT
  12. 2020 (8) TMI 591 - AT
  13. 2020 (1) TMI 545 - AT
  14. 2020 (4) TMI 49 - AT
  15. 2019 (11) TMI 1028 - AT
  16. 2019 (9) TMI 1080 - AT
  17. 2019 (11) TMI 198 - AT
  18. 2019 (7) TMI 930 - AT
  19. 2019 (4) TMI 1988 - AT
  20. 2019 (4) TMI 50 - AT
  21. 2018 (12) TMI 1659 - AT
  22. 2018 (7) TMI 1080 - AT
  23. 2018 (6) TMI 1282 - AT
  24. 2017 (11) TMI 1764 - AT
  25. 2017 (10) TMI 170 - AT
  26. 2017 (7) TMI 867 - AT
  27. 2017 (8) TMI 557 - AT
  28. 2017 (12) TMI 735 - AT
  29. 2016 (8) TMI 899 - AT
  30. 2016 (4) TMI 251 - AT
  31. 2015 (10) TMI 2250 - AT
  32. 2015 (2) TMI 154 - AT
  33. 2014 (8) TMI 720 - AT
  34. 2014 (10) TMI 33 - AT
  35. 2014 (1) TMI 1625 - AT
  36. 2014 (1) TMI 1125 - AT
  37. 2013 (11) TMI 1724 - AT
  38. 2013 (10) TMI 1074 - AT
  39. 2013 (7) TMI 950 - AT
  40. 2013 (12) TMI 1051 - AT
  41. 2012 (12) TMI 1135 - AT
  42. 2012 (6) TMI 799 - AT
  43. 2012 (6) TMI 709 - AT
  44. 2010 (12) TMI 842 - AT
  45. 2010 (5) TMI 672 - AT
  46. 2010 (4) TMI 1061 - AT
  47. 2009 (11) TMI 81 - AT
  48. 2008 (5) TMI 445 - AT
  49. 2007 (1) TMI 208 - AT
  50. 2006 (11) TMI 247 - AT
  51. 2006 (9) TMI 215 - AT
  52. 2006 (9) TMI 213 - AT
  53. 2006 (1) TMI 182 - AT
  54. 2005 (11) TMI 195 - AT
  55. 2003 (11) TMI 299 - AT
  56. 2003 (8) TMI 475 - AT
  57. 2003 (4) TMI 248 - AT
  58. 2003 (4) TMI 243 - AT
  59. 2003 (2) TMI 164 - AT
  60. 2003 (2) TMI 163 - AT
  61. 2001 (12) TMI 211 - AT
  62. 2001 (5) TMI 148 - AT
  63. 2000 (10) TMI 178 - AT
  64. 1998 (10) TMI 92 - AT
  65. 1998 (7) TMI 694 - AT
  66. 1994 (12) TMI 101 - AT
  67. 1993 (8) TMI 100 - AT
  68. 1993 (6) TMI 117 - AT
  69. 1992 (11) TMI 134 - AT
  70. 1991 (3) TMI 207 - AT
Issues:
1. Whether the sum credited to Banarasidas' account was income of the assessee liable to assessment under the Income-tax Act?

Analysis:
The case involved a Hindu undivided family engaged in a sarrafa business, with a credit entry of Rs. 10,000 in Banarasidas' account, leading to a dispute regarding its treatment as income for assessment. The Income-tax Officer considered the amount as income from undisclosed sources due to lack of explanation or Banarasidas' appearance. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal upheld this decision, prompting the assessee to approach the High Court under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act of 1922.

The Tribunal, in its observations, noted the absence of proof regarding the credit entry and the non-appearance of Banarasidas despite summons. The assessee's contention of taking steps to summon Banarasidas was acknowledged, but the Tribunal refused to interfere with the assessment based on the lack of evidence. The legal provisions under section 37(1) of the Act empowered the authorities to enforce attendance and examine witnesses, akin to the powers of a court under the Civil Procedure Code.

The High Court highlighted the procedural lapses in summoning Banarasidas, emphasizing that the authorities failed to take necessary steps for his appearance as required by law. The Court opined that the assessee had made efforts to secure Banarasidas' presence, and the Tribunal erred in disbelieving the explanation without legal basis. The absence of contrary evidence on record led the Court to conclude that the Rs. 10,000 was indeed a deposit by Banarasidas with the assessee firm.

In the final judgment, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the sum credited to Banarasidas' account was not income liable to assessment under the Income-tax Act. The Court also directed the department to bear the costs and assessed the counsel fee. The judgment highlighted the importance of following due process and ensuring fairness in tax assessments, emphasizing the need for legal substantiation in such matters.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates