9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 16,700 from the assessment of the firm. Summary: Issue 1: Deletion of Rs. 16,700 from the assessment of the firm The Tribunal was tasked with determining the correctness of deleting Rs. 16,700 from the firm's assessment. The firm, which began its business on February 14, 1967, did not file for registration of the partnership deed and was thus treated as an association of persons by the ITO. Four partners contributed Rs. 5,001 each as capital on the first day, while the fifth partner did not contribute, being a working partner. The ITO accepted Rs. 3,300 as satisfactorily explained but treated the remaining Rs. 16,700 as income from undisclosed sources. The AAC upheld this view, citing a lack of evidence linking agricultural income to the capital investment. Before the Tribunal, the assessee argued that the capital was introduced by the partners from agricultural income and relied on the Bombay High Court decision in Narayandas Kedarnath [1952] 22 ITR 18. The Revenue countered that the amount should be treated as the firm's income u/s 68 of the Act. The Tribunal found no definite evidence of the agricultural income source but noted that the firm had no prior business activity, making it implausible that the firm earned this income on its first day. Thus, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation and deleted the Rs. 16,700 addition, citing Mithoo Lal Tek Chand v. CIT [1953] 23 ITR 494 (All). The High Court, however, emphasized the statutory construction of s. 68 of the Act, which mandates that unexplained cash credits may be assessed as income of the accounting year. The Court noted that the Tribunal's decision was based on surmises and lacked evidence supporting the partners' claim of agricultural income. Consequently, the High Court held that the Tribunal was not correct in deleting the Rs. 16,700 from the firm's assessment, answering the question of law in the negative and ruling in favor of the Revenue. The Court also referenced several decisions but found them irrelevant to s. 68 of the Act. No order as to costs was made.
|
