9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (1) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 1. Sri Bishwanath Gupta ... 24,000 2. Sri Rukmanand Sarraf ... 19,000 3. Sri Raghunath Sarraf ... 20,000 63,000 The Income Tax Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, and after examining the three alleged depositors the Income Tax Officer came to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee is legally valid ? With regard to the first question it was submitted by the learned Government advocate on behalf of the assessee that there was no sufficient material before the Income Tax authorities to indicate that the amount of ₹ 63,000 deposited by Sri Bishwanath Gupta, Sri Rukmanand Sarraf and Sri Raghunath Sarraf really belonged to the assessee and represented his secret profit from some undisclosed source. We are unable to accept the argument of the learned Government advocate as correct. After having persuade the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated the 14th February, 1958, we are satisfied that there was sufficient material before it for reaching the conclusion that the amount of ₹ 63, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... awal of the fixed deposit. For all these reasons the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal rejected the statement of the three alleged depositors as untrue and held that the explanation of the assessee with regard to the ownership of ₹ 63,000 was not acceptable. In our opinion it is manifest that there was sufficient material before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to support its conclusion that the amount of ₹ 63,000 standing as fixed deposit in the Bharat Bank in the names of Sri Bishwanath Gupta, Sri Rukmanand Sarraf and Sri Raghunath Sarraf was really the secret income of the assessee from an undisclosed source and was, therefore, liable to tax. We accordingly answer the first question of law referred by the Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in Khemraj Chagganlal v. Commissioner of Income Tax. The correctness of this principle was not disputed by the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Income Tax department. But it was contended by him that there was material in the present case to show that the assessee was guilty of suppression of his income. Having persuade the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in this case we are satisfied that the present case comes within the principle laid down by this High Court in Khemraj Chagganlal v. Commissioner of Income Tax, and the Income Tax department has not discharge the onus of showing that the assessee is guilty of concealment of the particulars of his income or of deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
