1983 (10) TMI 17

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to about 14.2%, which the AAC reduced to 13.8%. For the year in question, therefore, the ITO estimated the sales at Rs. 3,85,000 and gross profit thereon at 13.8%. It appeared that during the course of S. Y. 2017, that is, on September 1, 1961, the Central Excise authorities bad seized gold weighing something more than 76 tolas sent to the assessee at Kolhapur. The consignor had admitted in excise proceedings that he was an employee of the assessee. An explanation had been sought to be tendered by the assessee regarding this gold, but the excise authorities did not accept the explanation and confiscated the gold, which order of confiscation was confirmed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. No further appeal bad been preferred. Havin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....separate addition of Rs. 9,375 and deleted the same. The Revenue applied for a reference to the Tribunal, which was refused. An application was then made under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, which was granted by this court, and, accordingly, the question which we are called upon to consider is this: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,375 as income from undisclosed source on the ground that there were other intangible additions made in the assessment for the preceding years as in the year under appeal ? " Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the Revenue, having taken us through the orders of the ITO, the AAC and the Tribunal, referred us to the judgm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Joshi also cited the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Annamma Paul v. CIT [1980] 121 ITR 433. The court relied and quoted extensively from an earlier judgment in Abraham v. CIT [1975] ILR 1975 (1) Ker 426, and observed that the court in that judgment had been unable to accept as a general principle that in all cases where an addition had been made to the income of the assessee in making the assessment for an earlier year, the amount so added should be presumed to be available to the assessee during the subsequent years. The court also noted that it had been held by it that the burden of proof to trace the unexplained credits to the intangible additions was on the assessee. The Supreme Court has clearly stated that the secret profit....