9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (1) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the agent of Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Private Ltd. While making assessment for the year 1960-61, relevant accounting year for which was the financial year ending 31st March, 1960, the ITO found that the assessee had advanced a loan of Rs. 55,000 to one Banwarilal. When called upon to explain the nature and source of the loan, the assessee, explained that in the year 1955, she had given a loan of Rs. 30,000 to one Sri Mangal Datt Shastri who paid it back to her on 4th September, 1959. She sold ornaments worth Rs. 28,208 the year 1955 and it was from out of the sale proceeds of those ornaments and the money received from Mangal Datt Shastri that she advanced the loan in question to Banwarilal. The ITO did not accept the explanation offere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... So far as the amount of Rs. 30,000 is concerned, the assessee claims that she had advanced a loan of Rs. 20,000 to Sri Mangal Datt Shastri in the year 1955. On this loan, Sri M. Shastri paid interest from time to time which she had already shown in the income-tax returns for the relevant, years. It was this amount which was returned to her and was available for being advanced to Banwarilal. The Tribunal rejected the explanation of the assessee in this regard on the following grounds : (1) The assessee had failed to place any material on the record regarding the source of the loan advanced to Sri Mangal Datt Shastri. (2) The date on which the loan was advanced in the year 1955 was not on the record. (3) There was nothing on the record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ills Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 169, that it is not consistent with the advisory jurisdiction of the High Court under the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, that the Appellate Tribunal should attach to the statement of the case documents other than proceedings of the income-tax authorities which are not mentioned and discussed either in its own appellate order or in the statement of case. In deciding a dispute arising as to the interpretation of a document so annexed, the High Court would be deciding questions not decided by the Appellate Tribunal and which the High Court would be incompetent to decide under the I.T. Act. Applying the principle underlying these observations, it is obvious that it is not possible for us to take the facts mentioned in the affi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
