9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (1) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing names : 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 the conclusion that the amount of money in fixed deposit to the extent of ₹ 63,000 really belonged to the assessee and represented his income from some undisclosed source. The Income Tax Officer accordingly added this amount to the taxable income of the assessee. He also issued a notice under section 28(3) of the Indian Income Tax Act and ultimately imposed a penalty of ₹ 15,000 on the ground that the assessee had concealed the pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ₹ 63,000 in fixed deposit with the Bharat Bank Limited, Jharia, was the secret income of the assessee and was, therefore, validly assessed to Income Tax. In the first place, the Tribunal has taken into account the circumstance that it was quite improbable that the three alleged depositors, namely, Sri Bishwanath Gupta, Sri Rukmanand Sarraf and Sri Raghunath Sarraf, who had never done any colliery business before, should think of purchasing a colliery from one Deokinandan. There was also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 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 Appellate Tribunal in favour of the Income Tax department and against the assessee and hold that in the facts and circumstances of this case the amount of ₹ 63,000 deposited by Sri Bishwanath Gupta, Sri Rukmanand Sarraf and Sri Raghunath Sarraf in fixed deposit with the Bharat Bank Limited, Jharia, was validly assessed to Income Tax in the hands of the assessee. The second question of law however stands on a different footing. With regard to this question it was submitted by the learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raj 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 particulars of his income or of deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. At page 14 of the paper book the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has said that "it was obviously the duty of the assessee to put all relevant questions to his withes so that their depositions might give some coherent story from start to finish, and if the assessee failed to do so he must thank himself." The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has misdirected itself in law on this point. As we have already said, the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
