9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (10) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - This is a case stated under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Two questions have been referred as directed by this court. They are : " 1. Whether there was any material on the basis of which the Tribunal could come to the conclusion that with Rs. 28,200 the assessee was carrying on any business for his own benefit, and the sum of Rs. 28,200 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Income-tax Officer. Panna Lal admitted that there were many transactions between him and his brother-in-law during the relevant accounting year. In support thereof he produced his roker. He admitted, that he did not ascertain the profit and loss in the transactions. He also admitted that the accounts were ledgerised and further that no interest was charged on the loan given to him by his brother ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l's) statement could not be accepted as correct as he was an interested party. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner in this connection observed : "Credits being covered by withdrawals could not possibly be treated as income from undisclosed sources unless it was proved that the withdrawals were for some other purposes and were not available for reintroduction in business, but no such material is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hout some return---if not by way of interest, at least a share of profit. He, therefore, estimated the profit that should have been earned, if Rs. 28,200 had been invested by the assessee or Panna Lal on his behalf, at Rs. 10,000. When the matter was taken on appeal to the Tribunal, without there being any material to connect the assessee with the business carried on by Panna Lal, it was assumed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
