TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (3) TMI 501
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....merely a transporter of the goods?" 3. The facts necessary for the decision of the present appeal are that the assessee which derives income from carriage contract for the assessment year 1996-97, filed return on October 31, 1996, disclosing total income of Rs. 5,76,133. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices as contemplated under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, was issued. After hearing the assessee the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs. 1,04,72,720.30 to its income being the value of bitumen short supplied by the assessee to the various divisions of the Road Construction Department of the Government of Bihar. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who by order dated December 18, 2000, deleted the addition aforesaid, which led the Revenue to prefer appeal before the Patna Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal. It was contended before the Tribunal that deleting the addition of Rs.1,04,71,720 towards value of bitumen short supplied is incorrect. 4. The assessee filed cross-objection supporting the order of the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cannot be added as income. In support of the submission, reliance has been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of R. B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 570, in which the Supreme Court held as follows (page 578): "Those observations have to be understood in the context in which they were made. Therein, their Lordships were considering whether the right of an evacuee in respect of the property left by him in the country from which he migrated was property right for the purpose of article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. No one denies that an evacuee from Pakistan has a residual right in the property that he left in Pakistan. But the real question is, can that right be considered as ownership within the meaning of section 9 of the Act. As mentioned earlier that section seeks to bring to tax income of the property in the hands of the owner. Hence, the focus of that section is on the receipt of the income. The word 'owner' has different meanings in different contexts. Under certain circumstances a lessee may be considered as the owner of the property leased to him. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 3rd edition, various meanings of the word 'owner' are given. It....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an to distinguish this case on the ground that under the corresponding English statute the liability to tax in respect of income from property is not laid on the owner of the property. It is true that section 82 of the English Income Tax Act, 1952, is worded differently? But the principles underlying the two statutes are identical. This is clear from the various provisions in that Act." 10. To put the record straight, Mr. Jain has also placed reliance on a judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Amratlal Chunilal Shah [1984] 40 CTR (Bom) 387, in support of the contention that the assessee is not the owner thereof. In the said case it has been observed as follows (page 388): "The Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the assessee was not the owner of the gold but was only a carrier. The Tribunal has found that the financial condition of the assessee was poor and that his income for the previous assessment year was determined only at Rs.4,000. The Tribunal has also relied upon the following facts as disclosed in the complaint before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, namely that there were other persons who had accompanied the assessee at the time when he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be income of the assessee for such financial year." 13. From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that when the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article its value would be deemed income of the assessee. Valuable article is a separate item in section 69A of the Act and it cannot be said that those valuable articles should be in the nature of bullion and jewellery. In my opinion, any article which has value will come under the expression "valuable article" mentioned in section 69A of the Act and the value of such article can be deemed to be the income of the assessee in case the assessee fails to offer explanation or the explanation offered is not satisfactory. 14. Mr. Jain then submits that the sine qua non for application of section 69A of the Act is failure to offer explanation by the assessee of the valuable article and in the present case, the assessee having offered the explanation, the provision of section 69A of the Act is not attracted. In my opinion, an explanation offered, if not accepted, is no exp....