9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03 - - - Dated:- 18-11-2008 - CHANDRAMAULI KUMAR PRASAD and DR. RAVI RANJAN JJ. Dinesh Choudhary for the applicant. Harshwardhan Prasad with Rishi Raj Sinha for the respondent. JUDGMENT 1. On an application filed by the petitioner under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, this court, by order dated December 1, 2006, had directed the Patna Bench of the Income-tax Tribunal to refer the following question for our opinion : "Whether in view of the decision of Supreme Court in the case reported in CIT v. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. reported in [1986] 161 ITR 524, the addition by way of investment in postal time deposits during pendency of investigation about its genuineness could be said to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jaipur informed that time deposit receipts (for short "the TDR") worth Rs. 76,58,567 are lying as securities for the loan advanced by the bank to the assessee. The bank also furnished details regarding the name of the post offices from where the TDRs were issued. The Assessing Officer, during the Course of assessment, required the assessee to explain the aforesaid investment. Its explanation being not satisfactory, the Assessing Officer treated the investment of Rs. 86,48,800 as undisclosed and concealed income for the assessment year 1990-91 and included the said income of the assessee under section 69 of the Act. 5. It is relevant here to state that the post offices from where the postal time deposits were issued, denied their existen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance-sheet. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that "the assessee had taken the stand in a criminal case that the postal time deposits receipts are genuine and it had made investment in the same." It appeared to the Tribunal that the assessee had taken this stand to prove its innocence in the criminal case and denied the investment before the tax authorities to save itself from the tax liability on the unexplained investment. 8. Mr. Dinesh Choudhary, appearing on behalf of the assessee, submits that so long the criminal court does not record the finding that the time deposit receipts are genuine, the amount spent cannot be said to be unexplained investment. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Suprem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
