9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Reframing of the question referred under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Genuineness of the loan of Rs. 10,000 from Sri Surana. 3. Tribunal's finding on the loan as the assessee's income from undisclosed sources. Analysis: The judgment involved a question referred under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, regarding the Tribunal's finding on whether the sum of Rs. 10,000 with interest was the assessee's income from undisclosed sources. Initially, a preliminary objection was raised by the revenue that the question was reframed during the hearing and should not be answered as it did not arise from the Tribunal's order. The assessee contended that the original questions raised were different and should be referred instead. The Supreme Court decisions in CIT v. Madan Gopal Radhey Lal [1969] 73 ITR 652 and CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. [1961] 42 ITR 589 were cited in support of the revenue's contention. The facts of the case revealed that the assessee, a scrap iron dealer, had obtained a cash loan of Rs. 10,000 from Tarachand Surana during the assessment year 1962-63. The Income-tax Officer treated the amount as undisclosed income due to lack of sufficient evidence. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the addition as the assessee failed to provide a verified address for the creditor. The Tribunal rejected the appeal as the certificate provided by the creditor did not conclusively prove the loan transaction. The High Court analyzed the evidence and held that the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the entry under s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Despite relying on various Supreme Court and High Court decisions, the court found that they did not support the assessee's case. Consequently, the court answered the reframed question in the affirmative, favoring the revenue. Both judges concurred on this decision, and no costs were awarded in the case.
|
