9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the refusal of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state the case, leading to a petition by the Revenue under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking clarification on three questions of law. Issue 1 - Addition of Rs. 1,50,000: The assessee, a partnership firm, had an addition of Rs. 1,50,000 in its income, which was later deleted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the fixed deposits in question were not the income of the assessee, as they were held by individuals who had pledged them to enable the firm to have an overdraft facility. The Tribunal concluded that there was no justification to treat this amount as the income of the assessee. Issue 2 - Source for the deposits: The Tribunal also addressed the necessity for the assessee to show the source for the deposits. It observed that the individuals who held the fixed deposits had provided plausible explanations for their source of funds, and the Tribunal found no reason to disbelieve their statements. The Tribunal highlighted that the creditors were paid from withdrawals made by the partners, further supporting the legitimacy of the transactions. Issue 3 - Provisions of section 69: Regarding the provisions of section 69 of the Income-tax Act, the Tribunal held that even if the explanation of the assessee was rejected, the Income-tax Officer had discretion to treat the investments as income of the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue failed to prove that the apparent transactions were not genuine and that the assessee was capable of saving the amount in question in previous assessment years. The Tribunal's findings, which were not challenged by the Department, concluded that the Revenue did not establish the deposits as the income of the assessee and failed to prove the firm's capability of saving such amounts. Consequently, the Tribunal rightly refused to refer the questions of law, leading to the dismissal of the income-tax case.
|
