2004 (7) TMI 291

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n Forest Ltd. He asked the assessee to file the evidence as regards to the source of deposit. The assessee explained that the amount was deposited out of maturity deposit of earlier FDR. It was stated that the money was deposited out of the refund of Rs. 50,000 received in cash on 27th July, 1993. An affidavit dt. 21st Nov., 1997 was also filed stating therein that the assessee took refund of Rs. 50,000 from M/s Golden Forest Ltd. on 27th July, 1993 in cash and the same was kept at home for personal use and was reinvested on 27th July, 1994. A cash flow statement was also filed to justify the claim. The AO did not find any merit in the explanation of the assessee and also found that in the cash flow statement the amount lying in the bank ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....K. Noorjahan (1999) 155 CTR (SC) 509 : (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC) (ii) S.R. Venkata Ratnam vs. CIT (1981) 127 ITR 807 (Kar) 5. In his rival submission, the learned Departmental Representative strongly supported the orders of Tax Authorities below and stated that the assessee miserably failed to furnish any evidence as regards to the source of deposit with M/s Golden Forest Ltd. He vehemently argued that the assessee was maintaining the bank account but the amount was not deposited in the bank, so, it was not believable that the amount in question had been kept in cash at home. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and the material available on records. In the instant case, it is noticed that the only explanation Given by the ass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h July, 1993 particularly when the assessee stated that the amount had been withdrawn in cash and the employees of the concerned company informed that the repayment was made by cheque only. Similarly, in the case of CIT vs. P.K. Noorjahan, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "in the corresponding clause of the Bill which was introduced in Parliament, while inserting s. 69 in the IT Act, 1961. the word "shall" had been used but during the course of consideration of the Bill and on the recommendation of the Select Committee, the said word was substituted by the word "may". This clearly indicates that the intention of Parliament in enacting s. 69 was to confer a discretion on the ITO in the matter of treating the source of investment which has....