1985 (5) TMI 33 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of Rs. 5,000 as income from unrecorded cash sales.
2. Addition of Rs. 27,000 as income from undisclosed sources.
3. Justification of sustaining the additions made by the Tribunal.
4. Consideration of evidence and material by the Tribunal.
5. Burden of proof regarding the stock of G.C. sheets.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the assessee sought direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer specific questions of law. The primary issues revolved around the additions of Rs. 5,000 as income from unrecorded cash sales and Rs. 27,000 as income from undisclosed sources. The Tribunal had confirmed these additions, leading to the application for reference. The Tribunal's decision was challenged based on the availability of material evidence and the justification for the additions.

Regarding the addition of Rs. 5,000 as unrecorded cash sales, the Tribunal relied on the Commercial Taxes Officer's findings, which included discrepancies in the cash balances and the assessee's admission of unrecorded cash sales. The Tribunal considered the absence of original papers but upheld the addition based on the assessee's admission and supporting evidence. The court concluded that the addition was factual and not vitiated, given the circumstances and the assessee's failure to challenge the findings adequately.

Moving to the addition of Rs. 27,000 related to the stock of G.C. sheets, discrepancies between the bank's records and the books of account were noted. Despite explanations and affidavits provided by the assessee, the Tribunal found the version unproven and sustained the addition. The Tribunal considered all relevant material, including the destroyed books of account of a third party, and rejected the alternative argument to restrict the addition. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the finding was evidence-based and not legally flawed.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the application for reference under section 256(2) as it found no legal questions arising from the Tribunal's order. The judgment underscores the importance of substantiating claims with evidence and the Tribunal's authority to make additions based on factual findings and relevant material, ultimately upholding the Tribunal's decision in this case.