9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (9) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the final fact-finding authority. We are, therefore, inclined to return the reference unanswered. Learned counsel for the assessee has, however, requested the court to examine the matter from a limited point of view, viz., as to whether there was any material before the Tribunal so as to warrant the finding of fact referred to in the above question. In alternative to our abovereferred conclusion, we shall do so. In our opinion, the Tribunal had material before it on the basis of which it could arrive at the conclusion referred to in the question and even from this point of view there is no merit in the grievance made on behalf of the assessee. Bhojraj Kishanchand is the assessee before us. The reference relates to the assessment year 1959-60. The assessee used to be one of the partners in the firm of Messrs. Bhagchand Bishandas, Bombay (hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay firm"), until June 15, 1958. On June 15, 1958, the assessee retired from the said Bombay firm. On June 13, 1958, the assessee executed a general power of attorney in favour of his uncle, Shri Khubchand Chellaram Gulwani, who continued to be a partner of the abovereferred Bombay firm. It is recited in the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31, 1969. The statements of the assessee were recorded by the Income-tax Officer on November 21, 1967, February 27, 1969, and August 28, 1977. The statement of Shri Khubchand, uncle and authorised agent of the assessee, was also recorded by the Income-tax Officer. Most of the answers given by the assessee to the questions put by the Income-tax Officer are vague and unconvincing. The said answers are not supported by cogent documentary evidence. Khubchand filed his own affidavit. Several other documents were also filed with the authorities by or on behalf of the assessee as reflected in the paper book pertaining to this reference. The assessee did not disown the said balance-sheet of Hong Kong business of the assessee taken charge of during the course of raid and seizure by the Enforcement Directorate and relied on by the Department during the course of reassessment proceedings. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the assessee contended that the abovereferred balance-sheet as on March 31, 1959, was got prepared by the assessee for the purpose of obtaining certain bank facilities and did not represent the truth. The assessee contended that the said amount of Hong Kong d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... then to the explanation, on the merits, the assessee's case before the Departmental authorities as well as before the Tribunal was,- (i) that the assessee was making purchases on credit from Indian parties for its Singapore branch; (ii) that after the goods were sold, the Singapore branch was remitting the monies to the head office, i.e., the Hong Kong office; (iii) that the head office, i.e., the Hong Kong office, used to remit the necessary amounts to the Singapore branch for the purpose of retiring the documents from the Indian parties on due dates ; and (iv) that the amount of 3,57,000 Hong Kong dollars appearing as capital of the assessee in the balance-sheet as on March 31, 1958, in fact represented the unpaid sale price of the three Indian parties and the balance represented loans taken by the assessee from two persons (who are father and son) and since the father is no more, the son has certified from Philippines both the credits." By his order dated October 20, 1977, the Income-tax Officer passed the assessment order for the assessment year 1959-60 by treating the abovereferred sum of 3,57,000 Hong Kong dollars, i.e., Rs. 2,85,600, being the equivalent amount th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equested to make submissions in this aspect of the matter. We did not get a satisfactory reply. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the court should examine the question from a limited angle, i.e., as to whether there was any material before the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the explanation of the assessee in respect of the above amount was unsatisfactory and the abovereferred amount was liable to be treated as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. The question as framed does not require us to deal with the controversy even from this angle. However, in the alternative, we have heard learned counsel for the assessee at length and gone through the record in detail from this point of view. The copy of the balance-sheet as on March 31, 1959, concerning the proprietary business of the assessee at Hong Kong carried on in the name of B. Kishinchand and Co. seized by the Enforcement Directorate constitutes relevant material on the subject against the assessee. The explanation given by the assessee contains several improbabilities and missing links and is not supported by reliable documentary or other evidence. The answers given by the assessee as well as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
