9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Income-tax assessment, genuineness of loan, disallowance of interest, relevance of evidence, admissibility of evidence, advisory jurisdiction.
Income-tax Assessment: The case involved the income-tax assessment of Premier Suppliers (P.) Ltd. for the assessment year 1965-66. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) found a sum of Rs. 25,000 credited in the books of the assessee in the account of Sureka Jute Company. The ITO called upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of the loan, as the source of the credit was not proven. The ITO added the amount to the income of the assessee, leading to an appeal by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC), who confirmed the assessment. Genuineness of Loan: The assessee contended that the loan from Sureka Jute Company was genuine, supported by oral evidence from the proprietor and payment of interest by cheques. However, the Tribunal noted discrepancies, such as the non-production of relevant account books and the method of loan disbursement and interest payment. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contentions and dismissed the appeal. Disallowance of Interest: The Tribunal also considered the disallowance of interest paid by the assessee on the loan. The Tribunal found the explanation provided by the assessee insufficient and upheld the disallowance, leading to a question of law regarding the justification of this disallowance. Relevance and Admissibility of Evidence: The High Court considered the relevance and admissibility of evidence, particularly the finding of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (IAC) in penalty proceedings related to the account books of Sureka Jute Company. The Court held that the Tribunal had not ignored any relevant material and had the discretion to consider evidence, even if not strictly in line with the Evidence Act. Advisory Jurisdiction: The High Court, in its advisory jurisdiction, analyzed the evidence on record and concluded that the Tribunal had considered all evidence presented by the assessee. The Court noted that while different views were possible, it could not overturn the Tribunal's findings. The Court also observed that the deposition of Bidyanand Sureka did not cover transactions of Sureka Jute Company, which was a crucial point in the case. Judgment: The High Court answered the questions raised in the negative and in favor of the revenue, upholding the Tribunal's decision. The Court found no grounds to overturn the Tribunal's findings and concluded that the Tribunal had appropriately considered the evidence. The judgment was delivered by Justice Dipak Kumar Sen, with agreement from Justice C. K. Banerjee.
|
