1980 (2) TMI 39 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issue involved in this case is whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 26,386 made by the Income-tax Officer and sustained by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax.

Judgment Details:

Assessment and Reassessment:
The total income of the assessee, an individual, for the assessment year 1957-58 was initially assessed at Rs. 2,37,899 by the Income-tax Officer (ITO) on April 29, 1960. Subsequently, a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was served on the assessee on March 30, 1966, for furnishing a return of total income. In response, the assessee filed a return showing the total income as already assessed. In the reassessment by the ITO on February 25, 1969, two additions were made - Rs. 1,968 from speculation business and Rs. 26,386 as income from undisclosed sources. The order of the assessing authority was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC).

Tribunal's Decision:
In the appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee accepted the addition of Rs. 1,968 related to speculation business but challenged the addition of Rs. 26,386. The Tribunal did not delve into the adequacy of the explanation provided by the assessee for the source of the amount. Instead, the Tribunal ordered the deletion of the amount based on the reasoning that there was no legal presumption that cash or investments reflect the assessee's income for a particular accounting year.

Legal Precedents and Supreme Court Ruling:
The Tribunal's decision was influenced by a Madras High Court case, but the High Court disagreed with this view. Citing the Supreme Court ruling in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1, the High Court emphasized that the burden of proving the source of received money lies with the assessee. In the absence of adequate explanation, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income.

Conclusion:
Due to the authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court, the High Court held that in the absence of sufficient explanation for the sources of the disputed amounts, the ITO was within his rights to treat it as income. Therefore, the question was answered in the negative against the assessee, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision. Each party was left to bear their own costs.

Separate Judgment:
Justice Bhopinder Singh Dhillon concurred with the decision.