1964 (12) TMI 56

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... usiness as hardware merchants in Madras. At the time of the original assessment, the assessee did not disclose in his returns that he had made any investments or that he had any sources of income other than his share in the above firm. Later on, however, information reached the Income-tax Officer that, during the financial year 1946-47, the assessee had made three fixed deposits of ₹ 50,000 each in the Bank of India at Palanpur. Originally, the entire sum of ₹ 1,50,000 was brought in for assessment in proceedings under section 34 of the Act, but, ultimately, the Tribunal directed the exclusion of two sums of ₹ 50,000, but sustained the addition of only one sum of ₹ 50,000, which stood as fixed deposit in the name of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o the Tribunal, the Tribunal was also not satisfied that savings, which had accumulated in the hands of the assessee even by 1944, could have been utilised for making the deposit in 1947. Nor was it prepared to accept the evidence of the person who claimed to have purchased the jewels. It observed that though the money had been banked in the Native State, the business of the assessee was all in British India, and that though the department had not proved positively that the assessee had any other particular source of income, it stood to reason that the bulk of the money should have been made in India. It confirmed the inclusion of this sum of ₹ 50,000 in the assessable income. An application under section 66(1) of the Act failing, th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vely that any sum not accounted for by the assessee in the regular manner did really proceed from the taxable territory and from any particular source of income from that territory. It seems to us that this claim of the learned counsel that the onus is upon the department to provide positive proof in this regard is not correct. When the circumstances surrounding the making of the deposit leaves no alternative source other than the source in the taxable territory and even that source can be pinpointed as the business of the assessee, the Tribunal was not indulging in any conjecture but found support for its conclusions in undeniable facts and circumstances. There were only two alternatives open: (1) that this amount represented concealed in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X