1963 (7) TMI 80

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Officer rejected his explanation regarding the entries in that account and assessed the said sum as his income from other sources. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed with the Income-tax Officer and confirmed the conclusion. The Appellate Tribunal treated the amount not as income from other sources but as income from the assessee's business itself. The first and the second questions referred to us relate to the sum of ₹ 13,865 and read as follows: "(1) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in coming to the conclusion that the sum of ₹ 13,865 being the peak credit in the anamath account on January 6, 1953, represents the undisclosed business income? (2) If the sum of ₹ 13,865 referred to above is he....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o the conclusion that the entries in the anamath account relate to the business of the assessee and that the peak credit of ₹ 13,865 in that account should be added to his income from his business as has been done by the Appellate Tribunal in its order dated October 28, 1957. As stated by the Supreme Court in Lakhmichand Baijnath v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1959] 35 I.T.R. 416; [1959] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 415: "When an amount is credited in business books, it is not an unreasonable inference to draw that it is a receipt from business." In view of what we have stated, question No. 1 has to be answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. The third and the fifth questions referred by the Appellate Tribunal read as foll....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o come to a different conclusion. As stated by the Supreme Court in Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1957] 31 I.T.R. 28; [1956] S.C.R. 691: "An inference from the facts of a case that a transaction is a benami transaction does not involve the application of any principles of law to the facts established in the evidence, and is a pure question of fact which cannot be made the subject of reference under section 66 of the Income-tax Act." In the view we take, question No. 5 has also to be answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. The 4th question referred reads as follows: "If the department is entitled to come to the conclusion that the business, 'A. Ramakrishna & Bros.', belongs ....