TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules in favor of tax department, treating cash credits as undisclosed income. Burden of proof on assessee.</h1> <h3>Seth Kalekhan Mahomed Hanif Versus Commissioner of Income-tax</h3> Seth Kalekhan Mahomed Hanif Versus Commissioner of Income-tax - [1958] 34 ITR 669 (MP) Issues Involved:1. Validity of the notice issued under section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act.2. Material basis for the Income-tax Officer's belief that income had escaped assessment.3. Scope of reopening assessment concerning cash credits.4. Burden of proof regarding the source of cash credits.5. Nature of the inference drawn by the Tribunal regarding undisclosed income.6. Justification for treating sums as profits from undisclosed sources despite percentage-based assessment.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Validity of the Notice under Section 34(1)(b)This issue was not debated as the assessee admitted that the action taken could not be questioned. Therefore, no detailed analysis was provided for this issue.Issue 2: Material Basis for Belief of Escaped AssessmentSimilarly, this issue was not debated, and no detailed analysis was provided.Issue 3: Scope of Reopening Assessment Concerning Cash CreditsThe court held that once a case is reopened under section 34, the Income-tax Officer is not limited to the information initially received. He is entitled to take into account any other cash credits discovered during the reassessment. The court emphasized that the mere production of account books does not fasten knowledge upon the Department regarding the existence of cash credits.Issue 4: Burden of Proof Regarding the Source of Cash CreditsThe court clarified that the burden of proving the source of cash credits lies with the assessee. If the assessee fails to provide satisfactory evidence or burkes an enquiry, the Income-tax Officer is justified in rejecting the explanation and holding that the income is from an undisclosed source. The court stated, 'The Income-tax Officer is not required to specify or prove what that source is, which from the nature of the case must be known only to the assessee.'Issue 5: Nature of the Inference Drawn by the TribunalThe court held that in the absence of satisfactory proof as to the source of the credits, the inference of the Tribunal that these credits are the assessee's income from some undisclosed sources is an inference of fact. The court emphasized that the Department was justified in rejecting the assessee's explanation when no substantial evidence was provided to support the claims.Issue 6: Justification for Treating Sums as Profits from Undisclosed SourcesThe court addressed the argument that assessing the cash credits as separate income amounts to double taxation. It was held that the addition of sums discovered as secreted profits does not amount to double taxation because they are considered undisclosed profits from an undisclosed source. The court cited Srinivas Ramkumar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, stating that the authorities were justified in treating the amount as the assessee's income over and above the income assessed at an enhanced flat rate on the normal business.ConclusionThe court answered questions (3), (4), and (6) in the affirmative, supporting the Department's actions. For question (5), the court concluded that the inference of the Tribunal regarding undisclosed income is an inference of fact. The costs of the proceedings were to be borne by the applicant.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
