9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of sections 132(4A) and 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding cash deposits and burden of proof.
Summary: Issue 1: Presumption u/s 132(4A) and its scope The assessee, engaged in pawning and sarrafa business, faced reassessment due to unfiled returns. The Income-tax Officer rejected 20 credit entries as unexplained, adding them to the assessable income. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the presumption u/s 132(4A) was rebuttable and did not negate the burden on the assessee to establish cash credits under section 68. The Appellate Tribunal affirmed this view, stating that the presumption under 132(4A) was limited to search and seizure proceedings and did not override section 68. The High Court agreed, emphasizing that the presumption under 132(4A) applies only to provisional adjudication during search and seizure, not regular assessment. Issue 2: Applicability of section 68 The High Court clarified that section 68 applies generally, requiring the assessee to explain any sum credited in their books. The Court rejected the argument that the presumption u/s 132(4A) negates the need for proof under section 68, as this would unfairly advantage assessees subject to search and seizure. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that while the entries need not be proved during search and seizure, their genuineness must be independently established during regular assessment. Outcome: The High Court answered all three questions in favor of the Revenue, affirming the Tribunal's decision. The Commissioner of Income-tax was awarded costs amounting to Rs. 250 for the reference.
|
