9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (1) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... They also purchased oil for resale. They maintained regular books of account in respect of their business. Information was furnished by the Sales Tax Officer (1), Enforcement Branch, Bombay, to the Sales Tax Officer assessing the assessees at the relevant time (hereinafter referred to as "the said Sales Tax Officer") that on 7th June, 1960, the said Sales Tax Officer had raided the place of business of M/s. Bhaichand Hemchand & Co. in Bombay and had seized certain books of account in which there were entries showing that the Bombay dealer, viz., M/s. Bhaichand Hemchand Co., had received nine trucks of edible oil from the assessees. The said Sales Tax Officer found that the assessees had accounted for only one truck whereas the Bombay deale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certain questions to this court. This application of the assessees was rejected by the Tribunal and it is on the application made by the assessees to this court that the present question has been directed to be referred to us. The question which we are called upon to consider in this case is whether there was any material on record on which it could be held that the assessees had suppressed any sales to the Bombay dealer. It is common ground that the only material before the said Sales Tax Officer as well as the Tribunal, on which reliance has been sought to be placed for coming to the conclusion that the assessees had suppressed sales, was the information furnished by the Sales Tax Officer, Enforcement Branch, Bombay, that from the books ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a conclusion as aforesaid could be founded. Mr. Andhyarujina has pointed out that in this case the assessees could have demanded an opportunity to cross-examine the Bombay dealer which they failed to do and hence it must be taken that the assessees accepted the correctness of the information given by the Sales Tax Officer, Enforcement Branch, Bombay. We are unable to accept this argument. In view of the fact that the entries in the books of account of the Bombay dealer were not brought on record at all, we see no reason why the assessees should have called upon the department to give them an opportunity to cross-examine the Bombay dealer. We are totally unable to agree with the view of the Tribunal that, in view of the information furnish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the statements made by the two persons and found that the evidence tendered by them suffered from serious infirmities. The Tribunal held that the evidence of mere entries in the accounts regarding payments to the assessee was not sufficient as there was no guarantee that the entries were genuine. The Tribunal held that there was no proof that the amounts in question represented income from undisclosed sources belonging to the assessee. This view of the Tribunal was upheld by this court. Mr. Andhyarujina relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in Devasahaya Nadar v. Commissioner of Income-tax[1964] 51 I.T.R. 20., where it has been held that it cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that the income-tax department canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
