2003 (1) TMI 87

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....anuary 12, 1988, in the premises of the firm at Saktigarh, a duplicate set of ledger for the accounting year ending with 31st Chaitra 1393 B. S. corresponding to April 14, 1987, being the relevant assessment year 1987-88 was found. A profit and loss account and a balance-sheet drawn up on the basis of the duplicate ledger were also found. In the said account, the capital balance on the first day of the accounting year ended on April 14, 1987, was higher than the closing balance in the capital account as on April 14, 1986, by an amount of Rs. 2,00,024. This was sought to be explained by the assesses, a partnership firm, to be an amount received upon sale of agricultural produce of the partners kept in the premises having been mixed up. The a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch a stand is taken by the Assessing Officer it is for the Assessing Officer to prove that the assessee was the owner of the money. There is no iota of evidence that this money belongs to the assessee. This contention cannot be accepted, inasmuch as section 69A of the Act postulates giving an opportunity to the assessee to explain. The explanation was offered. But, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, it was not satisfactory. It is open to the Assessing Officer to treat the same as an income of the assessee for the previous year. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that the partners of the assessee had submitted revised return. The same has been accepted under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the same a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... return had preceded the completion of the assessment of March 28, 1989. In the absence of any material, the question of double taxation does not arise. He had also relied on a decision in the case of Jalan Timbers v. CIT [1997] 223 ITR 11 (Gauhati), to contend that if the identity of the assessee is proved the onus is discharged. According to him, the partners have claimed the said amount. As such the identity having been proved and the money having been claimed by the partners the onus is discharged. The onus then shifted on the Department to prove that the amount belongs to the assessee. From the order of the learned Tribunal at pages 35-36 of the paper book, it appears the assessee did not take this stand even in its letter dated March....