RATANCHAND DIPCHAND Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay was directed by this Court to submit a statement of case under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 on the following question: "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case there was any material on record to hold that the assessee failed to explain the excess credit in the anamat account to the extent of Rs. 10,230/-in view of the addition made by the Department itself to the extent of that amount as the estimated profits to his income?" The above question has accordingly been referred to this Court for judgment.

(2.) The assesses is a Hindu undivided family carrying on money-lending business and business in Kirana, gur, sugar, betel nuts, sweet oil, etc. The accounts are maintained by him according to the Diwali year, the material previous year for the purpose of assessment year 1951-52 being 22-10-1949 to 9-11-1950. The Income Tax Officer made the following four additions to his income viz. (a) Income from sources as from 'business' undisclosed distinguished Rs. 40,389-0-0 (b) Profit in sweet oil business Rs, 11,000-0-0 (c) Additional businessprofit in kirana Rs. 5,530-0-0 (d) Profit in accountsother goods Rs. 5,000-0-0 In appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner up held the additions of Rs. 5,530/- and Rs. 5,000/- but reduced the amount of Rs. 11,000/- to Rs. 6,400/-. In regard to the addition of Rs. 40,389/- the Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the explanation of the assessee in respect of Rs. 9,937/- which was said to be the income from agricultural sources and reduced the amount to Rs. 30,452/-.

(3.) The assessee then came up in second appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rom-bay, where he did not contest the addition of Rs. 6,400/- on account of the estimated profits of sweet-oil business. The Tribunal, however, excluded the addition of Rs. 5,000/- on account of profits in other goods accounts. In other respects the additions made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were maintained. As regards the amount of Rs. 30,452/- on account of income from undisclosed, sources as distinguished from 'business' the Tribunal observed as follows: