TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1967 (4) TMI 14
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... called upon to explain that entry and to produce his books of account of the earlier years. The assessee pleaded that his books of account up to June 30, 1949, were lost and that the amount of Rs. 1,87,000 represented " cash brought from an iron safe kept in his house ". The Income-tax Officer found that in each previous year when the assessee was assessed under the Mysore Income-tax Act, he had pleaded that his books of account were either lost or stolen in the succeeding year. The Income-tax Officer was of the view that the assessee had probably an amount of Rs. 50,000 on hand representing a cash balance brought forward from the previous year, and that the balance of Rs. 1,37,000 was the assessee's income from undisclosed sources. The or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Tribunal and contended, inter alia, that the evidence produced by him showed that he had with him on October 27, 1946, in his bank account Rs. 1,38,946, that he had received Rs. 55,846 as his share on partition of the joint family of which he was a member, and that, besides these sources, he had agricultural income. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal modified the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and brought to tax Rs. 50,000 as income from undisclosed sources. The reasons recorded by the members of the Tribunal may be set out in their own words : " It is clear that the assessee has not been able to explain the source of Rs. 1,37,000 satisfactorily. But there have been trading additi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt observed that the Tribunal's conclusion that out of the amount brought to tax by the Income-tax Officer only Rs. 50,000 represented income from undisclosed sources was based on no evidence. The High Court observed : " The finding ... shows that the Tribunal also did not accept the explanation given by the assessee as regards the cash credit entry on 1st July, 1949. But strangely enough, the Tribunal, for no reason whatsoever, came to the conclusion that the unaccounted income may be estimated at Rs. 50,000. We do not know how the offer of the counsel for the assessee was at all relevant. The Tribunal's surmise about the assessee's income from jaggery trade and the receipt by him at the time of the partition in his family is not based....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntain a judicial balance. The order passed by the Tribunal without recording any reasons in support of the estimate of unaccounted income cannot, therefore, be sustained. But counsel for the assessee said that the case of the assessee had not been fairly tried. He said that there was on the record evidence that in a partition suit between the assessee and his brother the assessee received on June 30, 1949, an amount of Rs. 48,500 and Rs. 14,647 and Rs. 13,116 representing " money bonds ". He also said that the assessee had made a profit of Rs. 70,000 in his business in jaggery, that between November 18, 1946, and December 16, 1948, the assessee had drawn cheques " to self " on the Mysore Bank for Rs. 1,67,800 and between January 18, 1947....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh Court disagrees with the Tribunal on a question of law, the Tribunal must modify its order in the light of the order of the High Court : if the High Court has held that the judgment of the Tribunal is vitiated, because it is based on no evidence or that it proceeds upon conjectures, speculation or suspicion, or has been delivered after a trial contrary to rules of natural justice, the Tribunal would be under a duty to dispose of the case conformably with the opinion of the High Court and on the merits of the dispute. In all cases, however, opportunity must be afforded to the parties of being heard. In Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay v. S. C. Cambatia and Co. Ltd. the Bombay High Court explained the procedure to be followed in th....