LAWS(MPH)-1957-9-32

KALEKHAN Vs. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX

Decided On September 03, 1957
KALEKHAN Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order in this case will also govern M.C C. No. 43 of 1955.

(2.) THESE are two references made under Sec. 66 (2) of the Indian Income -tax Act by the Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, in reply to the orders passed by this Court calling upon the Tribunal to state a case. Since the assessee is common and the facts of these two cases are very similar it is convenient to dispose of them by a common order, as was done by the Appellate Tribunal when the appeal was initially before it. M C.C 42 of 1955 refers to the assessment year 1945 -46, while M.C.C. 43 of 1955 refers to the assessment year 1947 -48. Originally, the assessee was assessed by the Income -tax Officer on 24 -6 -1946 in the former case and on 10 -1 -1948 in the latter. It appears that the Income -tax Officer having found certain cash credits said to be on account of deposits made by other persons and the sale of gold issued a notice under Sec. 34 (1) (b) of the Act with the previous concurrence of the Commissioner. It was in answer to the notice that the assessment case was reopened and some further items said to be income from an undisclosed source in the hands of the assessee were assessed. The question which mainly arises in these assessment cases is whether the Income -tax Officer had sufficient material on which to hold that the cash credits represented income from an undisclosed source. The matter, however, has been split into many questions, which we shall give after we have narrated the facts of the two cases separately. M.C C. 42 of 1955: In that assessment year the Income -tax Officer found the following cash credits in the account books of the assessee, who carries on the business of Bidi making and manihari; <FRM>JUDGEMENT_302_TLMPH0_1957.htm</FRM>

(4.) As regards questions (1) and (2) we may say that these questions were not debated before us, because the assessee admitted that the action taken cannot now be questioned. We therefore do not consider it necessary to give any answers to those questions Thus there are only four questions which need to be answered.