RIDHKARANAS POONAMCHAND BHURA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an income-tax reference at the instance of the assessee and the following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal for answer by this court :

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this reference are these : THE assessment years are 1978-79 and 1979-80. THE assessee-Hindu undivided family had derived income from house properties and agricultural holdings and had declared an income of Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 10,000 for the years 1978-79 and 1979-80, respectively, which were subsequently revised to Rs. 35,000 in each of the two years. THE Income-tax Officer accepted the agricultural income at Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 10,000, respectively, and treated the excess income of Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 25,000 for the accounting years 1978-79 and 1979-80 as the assessee's income from undisclosed sources. THE assessee-Hindu undivided family indisputably owned about 200 acres of cultivable agricultural land. THE Income-tax Officer made additions of Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 25,000 in the accounting years 1978-79 and 1979-80, respectively, as the assessee's income from undisclosed sources. THE assessee filed an appeal in which the additions were reduced to Rs. 15,000 for each of the two years.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the assessee contended before us that the finding recorded by the Income-tax Officer as well as by the appellate authority has no basis, the Department has not produced any evidence and, therefore, whatever facts have been brought on record by the assessee, should be accepted. We do not share the view of learned counsel. It is always open for the assessing authority to go through the material placed before it by the assessee and find that from whatever has been produced by the assessee, if the income of the assessee does not appear to correspond with the assessed income, it is open for the assessing authority to reduce that amount and the burden is not shifted on the Department. It is only for the assessee to produce the material before the assessing authority which has to make the assessment and it is not for the Department to bring any material to contradict the estimates submitted by the assessee. In the present case, on the basis of evidence produced by the assessee and report of the Tahsildar, the income from agriculture was increased from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 20,000, taking it to be an approximate estimate and no hard and fast rule can be made out on the questions of fact. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the assessment made by the assessing authority does not suffer from any infirmity.