9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (6) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here pertaining to M/s. Promod Hosiery, Luddhiana. He proceeded to find out as to how these bills and vouchers had reached the said premises when the firm was working under the name and style of M/s. Krishna Goyal Hosiery works. In the process he examined the proprietor of M/s. Promod Hosiery Mills, Shri Yash Pal Goyal. He also examined Shri Dev Dutt S/o Shri PT. Labhu Ram, a full time accountant of M/s. Home Hosiery Manufacturing Union, Chawal Bazar, Ludhiana. The ITO recorded the statement of Shri Ravindra Singh, S/o Niranjan Singh, proprietor of a room where Promod Hosiery business was done. This examination was done through his Inspector. Harbhajan Singh, After examination of the statements of these parties, the ITO rejected the explana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a relation of Kamal Prakash Goyal Hosiery who was partner of M/s. Krishana Goyal Hosiery as he is a son of younger brother Raj Pal Goyal who expired on 9th September, 1976; that he visited the factory and, "I forgot there bills and cash payment receipts, but no books of account, which was kept in a bag"; that his assessment to sales-tax was made only 8 or 9 years ago; that sale-tax, number 10457 was allotted to him; that central sales-tax number allotted to him was 3731; that he got the books of his account written by one Shri Harbans Lal accountant as he was illiterate and that the sales-tax numbers given to him "were withdrawn due to non-achievement of good sale 10 or 9 years ago". 5. In his statement Shri Dev Dutt confirmed that in bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee as the assessee had discharged the onus. Now it was the revenue who was claiming that the bills and vouchers infact to belonged to the assessee and since it was in nature of a claim of benami being thrust upon the assessee, the burden lay squarely on the shoulders of the revenue which has not been discharged. In view of what is observed above, the reliance placed by the assessee on that judgement is justified. The ld. Counsel for the assessee had also relied on the judgement of the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Neemar Ram Badhu Ram (1979) 11 CTR (All) 253 but we think reference to it is not necessary as we are convinced that no case whatsoever was made out by the authorities below for making and sustaining the addition. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
