COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. NATHURAM GOKULKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following question has been referred to this court:

(2.) This reference relates to two assessment years, namely, assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64 for which previous years ended on 31st March, 1962, and 31st March, 1963, respectively. In the original assessment for the first year, the ITO accepted the cash credits in the account of one Radbakishan Almal of Rs. 27,000 as genuine after these cash credits had been investigated by him. On this aspect, the learned advocate of the assessee contended that the cash credit had been accepted after investigation. In the second year with which we are concerned cash credits of Rs. 36,000 in the account of Surajmal Ganeshiram and Rs. 24,000 in the account of Amarchand Sureka were accepted after investigation by issuing summons to those persons concerned. In that year, Rs. 9,000 in the account of the assessee's mother was also sought to have been accepted. The total amount "thus came to Rs. 69,000 for the second year. There was a disclosure petition filed by the assessee on or, about 6th of July, 1967, before the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 271(4A) of the IT. Act, 1961, which account was rejected on the 25th April, 1974. The ITO, thereafter, started proceedings under Section 147(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1962-63 on 15th January, 1971, and for the assessment year 1963-64 on 17th January, 1972, that is, before the rejection of the disclosure petition because the assessee stated that the amount of Rs. 27,000 in the account of Radhakishan Almal could be included in the assessment year 1962-63 and Rs. 69,000 for the assessment year 1963-64. It may be mentioned that though the disclosure petition has not been made a part of the document in the paper book or annexed to the statement of case we were handed over a copy of the said disclosure petition. Both parties agreed that we can look into the petition and we direct that the true copies of the disclosure petition which have been handed over to us be made part of the record. This is consented to by both the parties. In the disclosure petition, in paras. 3 and 4, the assessee had stated as follows :

(3.) Thereafter, the assessee gave a rotation list, from year to year, which has comprised both himself and his partnership. The assessee prayed that a certain amount might be brought under tax by spreading over five years more or less equally commencing from 1963-64 backwards and the interest credited be included in the total income of the year. The introduction of the partnership book should be left out of the computation of the firm's income and finally the assessee asked for a waiver of the penalties imposed. The assessee had annexed a rotation list with the disclosure petition. For our purpose, it is not necessary to set out in detail the said rotation list. In the original assessment, as we have mentioned and as reiterated in the statement of case, that Prahladrai Almal, son of the assessee, had appeared and produced the books of account for the period from May 1, 1961, to April 30, 1962, and these were verified. Similarly, for the assessment year 1963-64 one Bunwarilal Sureka, son of Amarchand Sureka appeared and produced the books of accounts.