1965 (3) TMI 7 - HC - Income Tax

Cash credit - on the failure of the depositor to satisfy the IT authorities about the nature of the sums and source from which he came in possession thereof, the Tribunal was justified in drawing an inference that this amount represented the undisclosed profits of the company

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 regarding cash credit explanation, burden of proof on the assessee to prove source of cash credit, evaluation of evidence provided by the assessee in support of cash credit explanation.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a case where the assessee, a limited liability company engaged in business with Tibetan traders, had a cash credit of Rs. 70,000 in its books credited to a Tibetan individual. The Income-tax Officer rejected the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the source of the cash credit. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision, leading to the matter being referred to the High Court.

The primary issues before the court were whether the Tribunal was justified in inferring that the amount represented undisclosed profits of the company, whether the burden of proof lay on the assessee to prove the cash credit did not constitute its income, and whether the burden of proof was on the income-tax authorities to establish the cash credit as part of the assessee's income.

The assessee contended that it had discharged the onus of proving the cash credit belonged to a third party, citing the explanation provided by the Tibetan trader. However, the court held that the mere discharge of initial burden of proof by the assessee did not preclude the Income-tax Officer from rejecting the explanation without additional evidence contradicting the assessee's case. The court emphasized the need for objective evaluation of evidence and noted that the burden of proof lies on the assessee to explain any credit entry.

Referring to precedents, the court highlighted that the burden of proof could shift to the Income-tax Officer under certain circumstances but ultimately rested on the assessee. In this case, the court found discrepancies in the evidence presented by the assessee regarding the source of the cash credit. The court noted inconsistencies in the transactions and lack of documentary evidence supporting the cash credit explanation.

Consequently, the court held that the assessee had failed to satisfactorily discharge the onus of proof, leading to the conclusion that the amount in question was rightly brought to tax. The court answered the questions posed in the negative, affirming the Tribunal's decision. The assessee was directed to bear the costs of the reference.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of substantiating explanations for cash credits and highlights the significance of credible and consistent evidence to support claims in income-tax matters.