9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal had sufficient material to find the explanation of moneys entered in the exercise book satisfactory? 2. Whether the sum of Rs. 30,000 could be deemed as the income of the assessee based on the facts and circumstances of the case? Analysis: The case involved a petition filed by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-II, seeking a direction for the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer certain questions of law arising from its order in relation to the assessment year 1963-64. The original assessee derived income from various sources, and the Income-tax Officer had made additions to the income from undisclosed sources, including Rs. 30,000 based on an exercise book seized during a raid by sales tax authorities in 1965. The Income-tax Officer added this amount as income from undisclosed sources, as the assessee failed to explain the sources of the loans recorded in the exercise book. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the exercise book belonged to the assessee but deleted the addition of Rs. 30,000 as it was covered by withdrawals in the accounts of certain depositors. The Appellate Tribunal confirmed this decision, stating that the advances were adequately covered by the withdrawals in the accounts of the depositors. The Tribunal also rejected the revenue's application to refer the questions to the court, as its findings were based on evidence on record and deemed as findings of fact. The counsel for the revenue contended that the assessee failed to link the withdrawals in the accounts with the loans advanced, and relied on a Supreme Court judgment to support the position. However, the court found that the Tribunal's conclusions were reasonable, based on the dates and time lag between withdrawals and payments. The court emphasized that the Tribunal's findings on factual inferences are final and not unreasonable or based on conjectures. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the revenue's request to refer the questions to the court, leading to the dismissal of the petition with no order as to costs.
|
