9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (10) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Jamuna Das Kashi Ram. His share in the firm is 8 annas. At the time of assessment of Kashi Ram the Income-tax Officer noticed deposits amounting to Rs. 8,500. It was further noticed that the assessee had withdrawn from the accounts of the firm a small sum of Rs. 500. The assessee was invited to explain the source of deposit of Rs. 8,500. The assessee stated that that money came from dowry and sale of ornaments. The Income-tax Officer concluded that the explanation given by the assessee was not correct. Adding a sum of Rs. 2,000 to the deposit of Rs. 8,500 the Income-tax Officer inferred that a total sum of Rs. 10,500 represented the assessee's income from undisclosed sources. The same officer assessed the firm also. The firm declared a lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ources in addition to the addition made to the share income of the assessee from the firm, M/s. Jamuna Das Kashi Ram ? " In Sreelekha Banerjee v. Commissioner of Income-tax, it was held by the Supreme Court that if the explanation offered by an assessee is unconvincing, the department can reject it and draw the inference that the amount represents income either from the sources already disclosed by the assessee or from some undisclosed source. The department does not proceed on no evidence, because the fact that there was receipt of money is itself evidence against the assessee. In Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. Commissioner of Income-tax, it was held by the Supreme Court that the burden of proving the source of cash credits is on the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of this court in Devi Prasad's case no doubt supports the stand taken by the assessee. But the decision of this court was reversed by the Supreme Court in appeal. The decision of the Supreme Court is Commissioner of Income-tax v. Devi Prasad Vismanath Prasad. It is true that the main ground for reversing the decision of this court by the Supreme Court was that the question discussed by the High Court did not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. None the less, the Supreme Court made certain observations on the merits of the case. Their Lordships observed on pages 196 and 197 : " There is nothing in law which prevents the Income-tax Officer in an appropriate case in taxing both the cash credit, the source and nature of which is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
