1954 (3) TMI 74

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family of which Amolakchand is the Karta. The dispute relates to the following credits, dated 26th April, 1946, in the assessee's account-books for the assessment year 1947-48, viz., (1) ₹ 37,834 in the account of Bhagirth-ki-chachi. (2) ₹ 29,534 in the account of Bai Ratni's mother. (3) ₹ 29,014 in the account of Bai Durga's mother. The Income-tax Officer doubted the genuineness of these entries and accordingly issued a notice under section 23(2) of the Income-tax Act for further information. The explanation of the assessee was that the amount in question represented the sale price of the ornaments of the ladies of the family. This explanation was rejected and the am....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sitive evidence that the accounts are unreliable and if their finding is not altogether capricious and injudicial, it cannot be interfered with. In the instant case, the rejection of the assessee's accounts is based on reasons and is not, therefore, open to interference. 4. It was, however, contended that before the assessee's explanation was rejected, the Income-tax Officer ought to have made enquiries from the ladies concerned and from the Bombay market or specified the points on which he wanted further evidence. It appears that the Income-tax Officer had first directed the assessee to produce the ladies for examination but later gave up the idea as, in his opinion, no useful purpose was likely to be served thereby. They were vir....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h him had received it and it is sufficient if the entries in his account books disclose the source of his own receipt. Reliance is placed in this connection on Narayandas Kedarnath v. Commissioner Income-tax, Central [1952] 22 I.T.R. 18. That was, however, a case in which the receipt of money from an outside source was clearly established but the amount was treated as income solely on the ground that the assessee had failed to prove how the parties who had sent the money had received it. In the instant case, the receipt from the alleged source itself is not proved. The case, therefore, is distinguishable. 6. It was lastly urged that even if the accounts be rejected, there is no material in support of the finding that the receipts represen....