1968 (8) TMI 5

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the business. The Income-tax Officer also found in the books of account an entry dated January 15, 1945, of a deposit of Rs. 20,000 in the name of Messrs. Banshidhar Rawatmal of Ratangarh. The Income-tax Officer called upon the assessee to prove the nature and Source of this deposit and, after considering the evidence produced by the assessee, rejected the plea of the assessee that the amount was deposited by Messrs. Banshidhar Rawatmal. In the view of the Income-tax Officer the amount of Rs. 20,000 represented the assessee's income from some undisclosed source. The order relating to the addition of Rs. 20,000, in addition to the estimated income, was challenged before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and before the Tribunal, but....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....roceeding did the assessee urge that the sum of Rs. 20,000 got merged with the estimate of profit made in the business at the head office " ; the only objection raised by the assessee was that the sum should not have been added as income from some undisclosed source. The High Court considered. the matter in great detail and recorded an answer in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner has appealed against that order with a certificate granted by the High Court. There is nothing in law which prevents the Income-tax Officer in an appropriate case in taxing both the cash credit, the source and nature of which is not satisfactorily explained, and the business income estimated by him under section 13 of the Income-tax Act, after rejecting....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....,000 belonging to Banshidhar as being income from undisclosed source. (b) Whether there was any further burden of proof to have been discharged by the assessee in respect of the item of Rs. 20,000 a order to be income from being taxed for Rs. 20,000 for a sum not belonging to the applicant. (c) Whether, it was competent to the department, both to add to the quantity of sales and the rate in the circumstances of the case. " The High Court, in disposing of the application under section 66(2), expressed the view that because the amount of Rs. 20,000 was entered in business, there was some material to hold that the, amount was Income of the assessee from the business and not from some other source. But it was not open to the High Court....