1981 (3) TMI 3 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Inclusion of an amount of Rs. 72,000 in the capital account of the assessee

Analysis:
The case involved a question referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the inclusion of Rs. 72,000 in the capital account of the assessee. The assessee, engaged in grains and grocery business, showed a credit balance of Rs. 72,000 on the first day of the accounting period for the assessment year 1966-67. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) completed the assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, estimating the income at Rs. 85,000 and computing the total income at Rs. 74,370 after deductions. The assessee's appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) was unsuccessful as the AAC disbelieved the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the cash credit balance. The Tribunal reduced the total income computed by the ITO by Rs. 72,000, leading to the question of whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the inclusion of this amount.

The High Court analyzed the situation and found that the Tribunal had not properly applied section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Court noted that the ITO and the AAC did not dispute the possession of the cash balance but found the explanation regarding the source of the Rs. 72,000 credit to be unbelievable. The assessee's claim that the amount represented savings from agricultural income was not substantiated with satisfactory evidence. As per section 68, if no satisfactory explanation is provided for a sum credited in the books, it may be charged to income tax. The Court held that the assessee's explanation lacked supporting evidence and, therefore, the amount of Rs. 72,000 should have been included in the income.

Conclusively, the High Court answered the question against the assessee, stating that the amount of Rs. 72,000 shown in the capital account should have been added to the income under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal's decision to delete this inclusion was deemed unjustified, and the Court ruled in favor of the Revenue.