2003 (9) TMI 40

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... could not be treated as its income since a substantial part of it, up to 80 to 90 % had to be distributed among the officers of the Animal Husbandry Department and others by way of bribe or illegal gratification – Held that assessing authority was justified in taking the view that the assessee having admitted the receipt of the amount and having failed to prove the expenditure as claimed by it, the entire amount was liable to be assessed at the hands of the assessee
Judge(s) : P. K. BALASUBRAMANYAN., R. K. MERATHIA. JUDGMENT P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN C.J.-These appeals under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relate to the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 under that Act. The appeals are by the assessee. The assessee fi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e entire amount should not be assessed at the hands of the assessee. The assessee had paid back the amount to the persons concerned and had earned only 10 to 20 per cent. of the amount received from the Animal Husbandry Department. The assessing authority took the view that the assessee having admitted the receipt of the amount and having failed to prove the expenditure as claimed by it, the entire amount was liable to be assessed at the hands of the assessee. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by a coffiI11on order relating to the three years. The appellate authority also agreed with the Assessing Officer that the assessee had failed to adduce any evidence in support of payment of 80 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e from the Animal Husbandry Department. The assessee is in business. Payments were received in the course of its business, against bills for supply of cattle-feed and other things to the Animal Husbandry Department. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that this is the income of the assessee. The only plea of the assessee was that the entire amount could not be treated as its income since a substantial part of it, up to 80 to 90 per cent. had to be distributed among the officers of the Animal Husbandry Department and others by way of bribe or illegal gratification. The concurrent finding by both the authorities and the Tribunal is that the assessee had failed to prove this plea of the assessee. In fact, the assessee could not even disclose .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X