9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the order of the Appellate Tribunal deleting the addition of Rs. 28,000 from the assessee's income was correct in law and in accordance with Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the assessee can take an alternative plea to explain the source of money introduced in the accounts. 3. Whether the Tribunal's findings based on the alternative plea were supported by positive evidence. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Rs. 28,000 Addition: The Income-tax Officer (ITO) found a cash credit of Rs. 28,000 in the name of Durga Prasad Sureka in the assessee's account books and treated it as income from undisclosed sources due to the assessee's failure to produce the creditor for verification. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) upheld this addition, citing discrepancies in the books and the non-genuineness of the transactions. However, the Tribunal deleted the addition, accepting the alternative plea that the amount could have come from withdrawals made in the preceding year from Raj Kumar Jain & Co., which was already assessed as income from undisclosed sources. 2. Alternative Plea: The Tribunal accepted the alternative plea advanced by the assessee, stating that the deposits in question could be linked to the withdrawals from Raj Kumar Jain & Co. The Tribunal found that the withdrawals of Rs. 62,500 were made between November 28, 1961, and February 6, 1963, and the deposits in the name of Sureka came after these withdrawals. The Tribunal held that the availability of funds more than the deposit appearing in the name of Sureka was established, and the deposit could be considered as coming out of the fund withdrawn in the immediately preceding year. 3. Positive Evidence and Legal Findings: The Tribunal's findings were based on the fact that the cash credit found in the name of Raj Kumar Jain & Co. was confirmed as income from undisclosed sources of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee accepted that the money belonged to it and that the deposits were made after the withdrawals. The Tribunal inferred that if the assessee had Rs. 62,500 in its possession and wanted to introduce it into the business, it could have done so from the readily available funds. The Tribunal concluded that the deposit was genuine and deleted the addition. Legal Precedents and Arguments: The court considered various legal precedents, including CIT v. Banarsilal Dhawan and CIT v. Daluram Pannalal Modi, which emphasized that the assessee must prove the source of the cash credits. However, the court distinguished these cases, stating that the Tribunal in the present case had found positive evidence linking the deposits to the withdrawals from the previous year. The court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Nelliappan, which allowed the Tribunal to accept an alternative plea and adjust the tax liabilities based on its findings. Conclusion: The court held that the Tribunal's decision to delete the addition of Rs. 28,000 was correct in law and in accordance with the provisions of Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee was not debarred from taking an alternative plea, and the Tribunal's findings were supported by positive evidence. The question referred to the court was answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.
|
