| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1958 SLG 280 1958 SLD 280 (1958) 34 ITR 807 |
Supreme Court of India
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 41-43 OF 1957, SEPTEMBER 24, 1958
VENKATARAMA AIYAR, GAJENDRAGADKAR AND SARKAR, JJ.
A.V. Viswanatha Sastri and B.K.B. Naidu for the Appellant. K.N. Rajagopala Sastri, R.H. Dhebar and D. Gupta for the
Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 41-43 OF 1957, SEPTEMBER 24, 1958
VENKATARAMA AIYAR, GAJENDRAGADKAR AND SARKAR, JJ.
A.V. Viswanatha Sastri and B.K.B. Naidu for the Appellant. K.N. Rajagopala Sastri, R.H. Dhebar and D. Gupta for the
Respondent
A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar
v.
Commissioner of IncomE tax
Law:
Section:
Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Income escaping assessment - Position prior to 1-4-1989 - Whether where an assessee fails to prove satisfactorily source and nature of certain amount of cash received during accounting year, ITO is entitled to draw inference that receipt is of assessable nature - Held, yes - ITO found certain incomes being sought, concealed by appellant assessee- On explanation appellant stated that certain amount was gifted to him by his father and remaining amount was his income from firm where another partner 'T' was his benamidar - Said explanation of appellant was rejected by ITO holding that there was concealment of income which was also confirmed by AAC - On further appeal, Tribunal, after examination of evidence, found assessee's statement regarding gift to be untrue - Tribunal further held that there was nothing to establish that 'T' was benamidar for assessee - Accordingly, Tribunal upheld order of AAC - Whether conclusion to which Tribunal came appeared to be amply warranted by facts of case and there was no ground for interfering with that finding - Held, yes FACTS The appellant carried on business in arrack. He also ran a lorry. For the three relevant assessment years, the ITO found that certain income was chargeable to tax, which appeared in the account books of a firm of which the appellant was a partner as credits from him. In an explanation being asked about the possession of these amounts, he gave explanation in two parts. Firstly he stated that certain amount, was gifted to him by his father. As regards the balance amount, the Explanation of the appellant was that they represented the profits earned in a partnership concern which carried on business in arrack, in which 'T' was only a benamidar for him Both the explanations of the appellant having been rejected, the ITO held that the amount in question represented concealed income and imposed tax thereon. On appeal to AAC, he confirmed the decision of the ITO. On appeal, the Tribunal on an examination of the evidence as to the gift which was alleged to have been made by the appellant's father to his aunt,…
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