9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether there was any evidence or material to support the finding that the sum of Rs. 92,575 represented the assessee's undisclosed income. 2. Whether the Tribunal's conclusion was perverse and based on conjectures, surmises, and suspicion. 3. Whether there was any evidence to support the finding that the sum of Rs. 10,000 represented the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. Detailed Analysis: 1. Evidence or Material Supporting the Finding of Undisclosed Income: The Income Tax Officer (ITO) added Rs. 92,575 to the assessee's income, suspecting it to be from undisclosed sources. The ITO noted that the assessee had no prior history of such income and had won continuously on 18 out of 19 days. The ITO's investigation revealed that other people had lost on the same horse on which the assessee claimed to have won. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) remanded the matter for further examination, but the bookmaker's (Shri K. N. Chakraborty) books were reported stolen, and he could not be traced. The Tribunal upheld the ITO's findings, concluding that the transactions were not genuine and that the evidence provided by the assessee was fabricated to appear legitimate. 2. Tribunal's Conclusion and Basis: The Tribunal found the assessee's claim of winnings from races to be unconvincing. Despite initial evidence from the bookmaker, the Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal noted that the bookmaker's accounts were found defective, and the subsequent theft of these accounts added to the suspicion. The Tribunal also considered the bookmaker's unreliable character, supported by his suspension and later cancellation of his license by the Royal Calcutta Turf Club for malpractice. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee did not discharge the burden of proving the genuineness of the winnings, and the evidence provided was insufficient and unreliable. 3. Evidence Supporting the Finding of Rs. 10,000 as Undisclosed Income: The assessee did not press question No. (iii), and thus, the court declined to answer it. However, it was noted that the Tribunal found the assessee had not produced any confirmatory letter or other evidence to prove the identity of the creditor or the genuineness of the loan, leading to the conclusion that the sum of Rs. 10,000 was income from undisclosed sources. Conclusion: The court agreed with the Tribunal that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the race winnings and the hundi loan. The Tribunal's findings were based on the evidence and circumstances, and there was no indication that the conclusions were based on conjectures or surmises. The court answered question No. (i) in the affirmative and in favor of the revenue, and question No. (ii) in the negative and also in favor of the revenue. Question No. (iii) was not pressed by the applicant. There was no order as to costs.
|
