| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2002 SLG 2586 2002 SLD 2586 (2002) 256 ITR 696 |
Karnataka High Court
G.C. BHARUKA AND A.V. SRINIVASA REDDY, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
G.C. BHARUKA AND A.V. SRINIVASA REDDY, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Birendra Singh
v.
Commissioner of IncomE tax
Law:
Section:
Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained moneys - Whether where assessee claimed that cash found during seizure belonged to other assessee, it was for assessee to trace undisclosed income to other assessee - Held, yes - Whether question as to whether seized sum belonged to assessee or anybody else being a pure question of fact, was not required to be answered by High Court in reference - Held, yes FACTS A search was conducted at the residence of the assessee and he was found in possession of Rs. 50,000 in cash and Rs. 50,000 in the bank locker of his son. The assessee claimed that Rs. 75,000 out of Rs. 1 lakh belonged to the firm 'MS' of which he was a partner. That explanation was not accepted by the Assessing Officer and the said amount was treated as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources under section 69A. On appeal, the Commissioner directed deletion of the amount of Rs. 75,000 from computation of total income of the assessee. On further appeal, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to discharge the burden placed on him to trace the unexplained amount of the firm. The Tribunal, therefore, affirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. On reference : HELD In order to assume that the amount of Rs. 75,000 found in the residence of the assessee was the income of another assessee, a firm, of which the assessee was a partner, it was for the assessee to trace the undisclosed income to the firm. The Tribunal had found that the assessee had failed to discharge the said burden. The question as to whether the sum of Rs. 75,000 belonged to the assessee or the firm, in which the assessee was a partner, being purely a question of fact, the decision of the Tribunal did not give rise to any question of law. CASE REFERRED TO Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SC). Smt. Gayathri and K.R. Prasad for the Applicant. M.V. Seshachala for the Respondent. ORDER A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J. - The Tribunal has referred the following question of law along with the statement of the case under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') for the opinion of this Court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,…
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