ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. POPULAR JEWELLERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following question has been referred to us for assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 :

(2.) There are three Income Tax references but as there is only one question, this judgment will dispose of all the three references.

(3.) The facts of the case are that in the assessment proceeding for the year 1967-68, cash deposits standing in the name of Shrimathi Dugra Devi, Shrimathi Parveen Kanta, Shrimathi Suraj Kanta, Shrimathi Trishla Devi and Shrimathi Suresh Rani, which were Rs. 10,000 each, were noticed by the ITO and these were unexplained credits. He accordingly, included the sum of Rs. 50,000 in the assessment year 1967-68 and disallowed the interest of Rs. 5,803.97 paid on these five deposits. Similarly, in the assessment year 1968-69, he disallowed a sum of Rs. 9,958 and a sum of Rs. 602 in 1969-70. The assessed appealed to the AAC who took into consideration the voluntary disclousres made by the five ladies under s. 24 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1965, and also made observations regarding these credits. He took the view that the credits were properly explained and did not represent the assesssee's income. He accordingly, deleted the addition of Rs. 50,000 and restored the allowance of interest in the three years.