9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (9) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ITO that Shri. Masood Alam, brother of shri Khursheed Alam, a partner of sister concern of the assessee, was carrying on business of manufacturing petroleum jelly. It was further stated that the jelly was to be supplied through shri Khursheed Alam, for which he was given an advance of Rs.8,000.The ITO while observing that it was true that Shri. Masood Alam owned this business, stated that he had no capital for the purpose. The ITO also required the assessee to produce Shri. Khursheed Alam for examination. At the relevant time, he had gone to Middle East and could not be produced. The ITO, in the circumstances, held that the business of manufacturing petroleum jelly also belonged to the assessee. He estimated an income of Rs. 3,000 from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year under appeal came to Rs. 40,000. it is also mentioned in the order of the ITO that the disclosed amount was available to the assessee in the form of property, stocks and cash. It was the case of the assessee that Mohd. Saeed had 1/4th share in the assessee firm and, therefore, he was also the owner of about Rs. 50,000 in the above disclosure, part of which was admittedly in cash. According to the assessee, the above amount of Rs. 13,855 had come for the above cash. About the deposit in the name of Halima Khatoon, it was stated before the ITO that the lady was a partner in M/s Jajmau Chemicals and that the money had flowed from the above firm. The ITO, however, rejected the explanation that no evidence to the above effect had been produ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an affidavit and has also certified before the lower authorities that she had the capacity to advance the amount to the assessee out of the sources stated above. He also stated that the amount was repaid to him by the firm subsequently. On these facts, it is not possible for us to hold that the burden which lay on the assessee, in the circumstances of the case, was not discharged. It is not disputed and, in fact, it is fully established that the lady was a partner in the firm M/s Jajmau Chemicals. She had also the capacity to advance the amount as is proved form the withdrawal of Rs. 12,000 by her from that firm in the asst. yrs. 1973-74. Her version is also supported by the statement of her husband. It also cannot be lightly brushed aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
