TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (8) TMI 33
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficer found that the minors were not able to earn the huge amount of Rs. 30,000 each from any available source and, therefore, concluded that the aggregate amount of Rs. 90,000 represented the assessee's concealed income from undisclosed sources. The assessment was made on that basis. On the assessee's appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner deleted the addition by observing that the assessee had discharged its onus by pointing out that the credits were given out of the amount disclosed under the voluntary disclosure scheme mentioned above and the Income-tax Officer was not competent to go behind the source of the cash credits in the hands of the creditors. The Revenue took the matter in appeal before the Tribunal which followed Rattan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uled the decision of the Delhi High Court. Earlier also, a similar matter came up before a Division Bench of this court in CIT v. Salig Ram Prem Nath [1985] 153 ITR 234. Following the decision of the Supreme Court and other High Courts, it was held that if declaration under section 24 of the disclosure scheme referred to above is made on behalf of a minor, mere acceptance of the amount on behalf of the minor in the disclosure scheme would not discharge the onus which lay on the assessee under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In Jamnaprasad Kanhaiyalal's case [1981] 130 ITR 244 (SC), the following guidelines were laid down at page 245: " Held, (i) that the declaration under section 24(2) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1965, had to rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he applicability of s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 ; (v) that, in a case of this description, there was no question of double taxation. Once it was found that the income declared by the creditors did not belong to them, there was nothing to prevent the same from being taxed in the hands of the assessee to whom it actually belonged. Held also, that the ITO was justified in treating the cash credits appearing in the books of account of the assessee amounting to Rs. 46,250 as the assessee's income from undisclosed sources since the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof placed upon it under s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. " A reading of the aforesaid clearly goes to show that it was open to the Revenue to dispute the genuineness o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hered that they could earn Rs. 30,000 each or any other source from which they got it. In this behalf, no evidence whatsoever was led and mere reliance was placed on the disclosure statement made on behalf of the minors. Hence, it has to be held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus which lay on it under section 68 of the Act to explain the source of deposit of Rs. 90,000. In this behalf, we disagree with the decision of the Tribunal and answer the second question as well in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, that is, in the negative. Before parting, one argument which was sought to be raised by the counsel for the assessee under question No. 2 may be noticed. It was urged that when the matter was decided, it was un....