Law:

Section:

Section 69A of the income-tax act, 1961-Unexplained moneys-Original assessment made on 29-4-1960 and reassessment under section 147 made on 25-2-1969 after adding unexplained amount of Rs. 26,386 as income from undisclosed sources-Impugned addition deleted by tribunal holding that without any proof it could not represent income accruing in that year-Whether tribunal was justified in law-Held, on facts, no Facts The assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1957-58 was completed on 29-4-1960 on a total income of Rs. 37,899. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened and the reassessment was completed on 25-2-1969 adding Rs. 1,968 and Rs. 26,386 to the originally assessed income on account of speculation income and as income from undisclosed source, respectively. The reassessment was confirmed by the AAC. Before the Tribunal, the assessee disputed the addition of Rs. 26,386 on the ground that the ITO and the AAC had erroneously rejected the assessee's explanation regarding the source of the said sum. The Tribunal did not go into the merit of the assessee's explanation but deleted the impugned additions holding that there was no presumption in law that the cash appearing in the assessee's hand and/or investment made by him during a particular accounting year reflected, by any fiction, his income, unless there was evidence to show that the impugned amount was income which accrued to him in that particular accounting year. On reference: Held 1. It was settled law that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money received by the assessee was on him. It was for him to show that either the receipt was not income or it was exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Act- In the absence of such proof, the ITO was entitled to treat it in law as assessee's taxable income. The Tribunal was, accordingly, wrong in deleting the impugned addition in the absence of adequate explanation regarding its source. 2. Since, however, the Tribunal did not go into the adequacy of the assessee's explanation, the case was remanded to it for deciding the issue afresh. Case Review Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) followed. Vishnukantham Chetty v. CIT…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492