9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (7) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of this credit. By a letter dated the 17th December, 1968, Sureka Jute Company informed the ITO that its books of accounts had been seized and retained by the income-tax department. Thereupon, the ITO called upon the assessee to prove that the loan was a genuine one. The assessee produced one Bidyanand Sureka, the sole proprietor of the Sureka Jute Company, who deposed before the ITO, inter alia, that he was a partner of the firm, Daluram Gaganmall, since 1964 and had advanced money to the assessee in the past. The books of accounts of the firm were in possession of the ITO, Sp. Circle IV. He did not remember the dates of the transactions nor the amounts advanced nor could he produce the bank accounts which it was stated were also with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that Bidyanand Sureka had admitted before the ITO that M/s. Sureka Jute Company was engaged only in name-lending activity. It was contended by the revenue on the other hand that the confession of Bidyanand Sureka had been brought to the notice of the assessee when the deposition of Bidyanand Sureka was recorded on the 8th of May, 1969. The Tribunal noted the finding of the IAC in the penalty proceedings that the account books of Sureka Jute Company in the possession of the income-tax department related to the period prior to 5th September, 1963. It was accordingly held that the explanation of Bidyanand regarding non-production of account books was not correct. From the deposition of Bidyanand Sureka the Tribunal concluded that Bidyana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted that the Tribunal had wrongly taken into account the alleged finding of the IAC that the account books of Sureka Jute Company for the relevant year were not in the custody of the income-tax department and had concluded therefrom that Sureka Jute Company failed to produce its account books. The purported order of the IAC passed in a different proceeding was irrelevant and inadmissible and the Tribunal was not justified in taking note of the same and basing its decision thereon. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case it appears to us that the Tribunal has duly considered the entire evidence adduced by the assessee and it cannot be said that the Tribunal had ignored any relevant material. The order of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
