9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (5) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent appeal as found in the order of the AAC in paras 2 and 3 are reproduced below: "The facts in brief are that the return was due on 30th June, 1966, but the same was filed on 30th March, 1968. The return, therefore, was late by 20 months. In the return, filed by the appellant business income at Rs. 17,500 was disclosed. There was a cash credit of Rs. 57,000 in the account of partner Shri Akbarali Thaverbhai and in part II of the return the appellant drew as below: Credits in the account of Akberali Thaverbhai is out of past savings as already declared earlier. This is not the income and it is submitted that it is not, therefore, shown. It is considered not liable to tax." The ITO completed the assessment on a total income of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on the basis of URF. In para 12 of his order, he further observed that no evidence was produced in support of the contention that there was dispute amongst the partners which led to late filing of the return. 4. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. counsel after submitting compilation of 13 pages reiterated arguments as were made out before the authorities below. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case Smt. Ramlaxmi Jivraj vs. CWT (1982) 138 ITO 731 (Guj) by submitting that income as per the return of income filed was below the taxable limit which was Rs. 26,500 at the relevant time in respect of registered firm when in fact amount returned was only Rs. 17,500. Besides, since asst. yr. 1960-61 the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble one favouring the assessee should be adopted. The ld. departmental representative, without making any submissions, relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have considered the submissions and materials to which our attention was drawn. We are not inclined to accept the submissions made by the ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee and, therefore, uphold the order of the AAC in toto. However, we would like to add further as follows. 5.1. The cases relied upon by the assessee are distinguishable. In the case of Smt. Ramlaxmi Jivraj the case was under the WT Act in respect of penalty under s. 18(1)(a) and s. 40(2) of the WT Act. In the case of Omkar Estate Corporation, the decision in the case of Addl. CIT vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he books and, therefore, the assessee was able to introduce cash to the extent of Rs. 57,000. The assessee has also produced a copy of sale deed of immovable property worth Rs. 15,000 sold in 1955. It is also argued that there were estimate under s. 145 in past and this also may be taken into account in deciding the issue. The arguments of the assessee are considered. The assessee has not been able to prove that cash declared in 1950 was still lying till the date. The amount was introduced in the books and it is also seen that in the intervening period, partners have introduce cash in their accounts on this ground. It is also seen that withdrawals of the partners are quite low and agricultural income has been considered at the time of ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
