2002 (1) TMI 38

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... case, under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court: "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the explanation of the assessee that the amount of Rs. 75,000 had come out of the income of the firm, Madhu Sweets, and in holding ultimately that the amount represented the income of the assessee from undisclo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ribunal found that the assessee failed to discharge the burden placed on him to trace the unexplained amount to the firm. On an application by the assessee, the Tribunal referred the above question for the opinion of this court. Learned counsel for the assessee cited the decision in Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SC), in support of the proposition that the Act does not provi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is a partner, it was for the assessee to trace this undisclosed income to the firm. The Tribunal has found that the assessee had failed to discharge the said burden. The question whether the said sum of Rs. 75,000 belonged to the assessee or the firm in which the assessee was a partner, being purely a question of fact, its decision by the Tribunal does not give rise to any question of law. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X