TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (6) TMI 85
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the asst. yr. 1975-76 the ITO noticed that there were the following three cash credits: (1) Sahu Munish chandra of Nagina Rs. 25,000 (2) Smt. Jeewan Jyoti w/o Sri Suresh Chandra Agarwal Rs. 25,000 (3) Smt. Ram Kishori w/o Sri Ram Prakash Rs. 5,000 Total Rs. 55,000 The following genealogical table would be helpful: . Not known . . Smt Kailasho Devi . . (died in 1975) . . | . Not known Munish Rameshwar Prasad Smt. Ram Kishoree alias Chandra Sahu alias Ramesh Chandra.. Smt. Kishore Devi.. Dr. Ram (Examined) Ganga Devi Prakash (Died in 1962-63 . | . | | | Suresh Chandra.. Smt. Subash Chandra Satish Chandra. Jeewan Jyoti (D/o Smt. (Examined) . Vijaya Laxmi and L. . . Radhey Raman Lal) . . The ITO took the view that these cash credit were unexplained whereas the learned AAC, treating them as explained, deleted the additions. 4. The rival submissions have been heard. The assessee had filed a letter dt. 5th Feb., 1977 from Sri. Munish Chandra wherein it was mentioned that Rs. 25,000 were received by him from Shri Subash Chand s/o Shri Ramesh Chandra of Amroha on 5th Feb., 1977 out of money given on 1st April, 1974. Another letter ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ft of Rs. 25,000 from her mother Smt. Vijay Laxmi on 6th April, 1974. This was confirmed by there affidavit. Smt. Vijay Laxmi had filed a return of gift accordingly on 5th Aug., 1975 which though not accepted by the GTO, Bareilly, had been accepted by the AAC, Bareilly in appeal vide his order dt. 26th April, 1978. However, the ITO treated this cash credit also as unexplained. The learned AAC however, deleted this addition also. 6. In reply to a query from the Bench the learned Departmental Representative was not able to state as to whether the Department had filed any appeal against the order d. 26th April, 1978 of the AAC, Bareilly accepting the gift made by Smt. Vijay Laxmi on 6th April, 1974 to Smt. Jeewan Jyoti. In view of the above material and affidavit, of which there is no rebuttal, the financial capacity of Smt. Vijay Laxmi to make the gift has to be taken as established. This is particularly so because Smt. Vijay Laxmi had deposed that sugar-cane was sold for Rs. 41,821 from 1968 to 1974-75. Therefore, a gift of Rs. 25,000 could very well have been made on 6th April, 1974. The learned AAC had also considered the certificate from the Cane Department Inspector, Faridpur ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owever, the learned AAC held that the business of the assessee was separate from the business of Shri Subhash Chandra and therefore, deleted the addition. 11. The rival submissions have been heard in regard to this addition also. The first point is that at the time of the order under. 132(5) Shri Subhash chandra had not been examined by the ITO. Although it does not seem to be under dispute that Shri Subhash Chandra was aged 17 years at the relevant time but the books of account of the assessee were partly written by Shri Subhash Chandra. In fact the case of the assessee was that the books seized belonged to Subhash Chandra who was doing pawning business in his own name. The assessee had filed an affidavit from Subhash Chandra before the learned AAC. On this affidavit the learned AAC had asked for a report from the ITO for which purpose the ITO then examined Shri Subhash Chandra. In this statement Subhash Chandra confirmed that he had no business connection with the assessee-firm. He also stated that one of his account books had been seized during the course of the raid on the business and residential premises of the assessee-firm. He clearly stated that he was carrying on his ow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r and does not need any interference. The learned AAC had verified from the records that the assessee had filed a map before the ITO giving building plant of Shri Subhash Chandra regarding this building. The factum of partial partition also stands established. Shri Subhash Chandra is being assessed in respect of the house property income from this building. Therefore, the order of the learned AAC on this point is confirmed. 15. The next point which merely forms part of the main issue discussed above was the same namely, whether Shri Subhash Chandra at the age of 17 years could be expected to do business independently in his individual capacity. This point taken by the Department in its appeal is also not tenable, the reasons being those discussed in the appeal for the asst. yr. 1975-76. CO. Nos. 77 & 78/Del/1987 16. For the asst. yrs. 1975-76 and 1976-77 the assessee is aggrieved since the income of Rs. 8,500 and Rs. 10,000 respectively belonging to Smt. Jeewan Jyoti were taken to be belonging to the assessee-firm. These cross-objections had been filed late on 11th Feb., 1987. However, two affidavits were filed by the assessee, one of the partner Shri Suresh Chadnra and the o....