9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (7) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es to the assessment year 1949-50. for which the relevant accounting year is Samvat year 2004. For this year, the Income-tax Officer assessed the firm by an order dated March 29, 1954, on the total income of Rs. 1,46,331 which, inter alia, included a sum of Rs. 25,000 as assessee's income from undisclosed sources. This amount was found as a deposit in the account of one Shankerlal Matadin in the books of account of the assessee. The entries in the books of account showed that it was first deposited on April 6, 1948, then withdrawn on July 3, 1948, and again redeposited on July 20, 1948. The contention of the assessee was that this amount was a genuine loan taken from Shankerlal Matadin and interest amount of Rs. 375 was duly paid thereon an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rved at the same address was returned with the postal remark that the addressee was not known, the Income-tax Officer did not consider it necessary to issue a fresh summons pursuant to the second letter of the assessee. As no corroborative evidence was produced by the assessee in support of his contention the Income-tax Officer rejected the correctness of the entry in the books of the assessee and treated it as income from undisclosed sources. In an appeal by the assessee the Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the contention of the assessee on the ground that after the second letter of the assessee the Income-tax Officer ought to have issued a fresh summons and as he had omitted to do so, he thought that there was not sufficient e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade by the Income-tax Officer and he was, therefore, not justified in coming to the conclusion that the sum of Rs. 25,000 represented income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. We find ourselves unable to accept this contention. A question of issuing a fresh summons in view of the second letter can possibly arise only if the address given earlier was erroneous. Even if it is accepted as stated in the second letter of the assessee that the firm of Shankerlal Matadin belonged to Messrs. Ramchandra Biseswarlal and if the address given was genuine then any letter addressed to M/s. Shankerlal Matadin at the address given should normally be received by the addressee. This is not a case where the package is returned with the postal remark "n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n by the High Court when notwithstanding particulars being furnished as regards the name of the person from whom a borrowing was made no attempt whatsoever was made to issue and serve a summons on the party. On the contrary, in the present case, on the information furnished by the assessee a summons was sent by post at the address given but that could not be served and was returned with the postal remark that the addressee is "not known". That was not the case before the Allahabad High Court in the above matter. The second decision relied upon is also a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Nathu Ram Premchand v. Commissioner of Income-tax. The Allahabad High Court in this case has taken the view that no inference can be drawn against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
