1966 (9) TMI 28 - HC - Income Tax

Undisclosed profit - In the return filed by assessee showed a loss and after making certain adjustments the registered accountant of the assessee admitted a loss - held that there was no material for the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the sum of Rs. 8,050 was an undisclosed profit and assessable as such in her account

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal had any material to hold that a sum of Rs. 8,050 was an undisclosed profit and assessable as such in the year of account.

Analysis:
The case involved the assessment of an assessee who showed a loss in the return filed for the year 1951-52. The Income-tax Officer added a sum of Rs. 8,050 as undisclosed profit based on cash brought in by the assessee in her personal account. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal upheld this addition without providing detailed reasons for their decisions. The primary issue was whether there was sufficient material for the tax authorities to treat the sum of Rs. 8,050 as undisclosed income.

The assessee's explanation, provided through a letter from the auditor, detailed the cash on hand and advances made to the business during the relevant assessment years. The letter indicated that the assessee had cash on hand during the period under consideration. The Tribunal acknowledged the cash balances but questioned substantial sums given to certain individuals, doubting the explanation that these amounts were kept for future adjustments. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee failed to prove the necessity for the money or the existence of a home chest account, leading to the treatment of Rs. 8,050 as undisclosed profit.

The High Court held that the Tribunal failed to consider crucial evidence submitted by the auditor and did not analyze the capital account, which disclosed withdrawals before the credited amounts. The Court emphasized that when account books are not rejected or disbelieved, the tax department cannot unreasonably reject a valid explanation. Referring to precedent, the Court stated that rejecting a reasonable explanation cannot nullify good proof. Consequently, the Court found that there was insufficient material for the Tribunal to treat the sum of Rs. 8,050 as undisclosed profit, ruling in favor of the assessee and directing costs to be paid by the department.