1984 (6) TMI 37

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y JAGANNATHA SHETTY J.-This is a reference under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (shortly called' " the Act "). The following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, for the opinion of this court : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the addition of Rs. 10,060 under section 69 of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hose watches. The assessee tried in vain to show that S. P. Bhandary was the owner of the watches. He could not prove the same. He could not produce any evidence to lend credence to his contention. On the contrary he had admitted before the Customs authorities at the time of seizure of the watches that lie was the owner of it. So the ITO added the sum of Rs. 10,060 to the income of the assessee as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....atches should not be added as income from undisclosed sources. It seems to us that the acquittal by the criminal court for not proving the offence under s. 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act is irrelevant for the purpose of the I.T. Act. The assessee had conceded at the earliest that be had purchased the watches seized by the authorities. In the absence of any other acceptable evidence, it must be he....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted the watches with an imposition of fine of Rs. 2,000, the whole of the price money of the watches should be considered as a loss while computing the income of the assessee. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Piara Singh [1980] 124 ITR 40. In that case the assessee was a smuggler. The question was whether he was entitled t....