SEERAJUDDIN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 66(2), Income-tax Act praying for calling upon the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to submit a statement to this Court on some points of law. The original assessee Munshi Dilwar Ali having died during the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal his son Serajuddin was substituted as the petitioner before us. The assessment year is 1949-50 on the basis of the accounts for the year terminating on 31-3-1949. During the examination of the accounts, the income-tax authorities found a total sum of Rs. 90,925 in the account papers of the year in question as cash credit. They called upon the assessee to explain if it was not the taxable income of the year. The explanation submitted by the assessee is to the effect that this was not the income of the year of the business which had in fact undergone a loss of more than six thousand rupees, but it was the sum-total of the money which the assessee drew from his own Chest and put into the business. The income-tax authorities had properly considered the explanation and giving cogent reasons and had thought fit to reject the said explanation.

(2.) The main two reasons which rightly weighed with the authorities are that the assessee is not producing the accounts of two very relevant years, that is, 1946 and 1947, and further they have not accepted it as probable that the assessee, who had extensive business, does not really keep any home-chest account. Further the income-tax authorities had before them sufficient materials to come to the conclusion that in fact this sum was the taxable income of the year from undisclosed source. In our opinion the matter seems to have been concluded by findings on facts and there is no question of law for calling upon the Tribunal to make a reference to this Court.

(3.) We will refer to a decision of the Patna High Court reported in -- 'Jadunandan v. Commr. of Income-tax, B. & O.', AIR 1949 Pat 215 (A) where the position has been succinctly laid down that the income-tax authorities were right in holding that a certain sum shown as cash credits in the personal ledger account of the business in the name of the family, actually represented, not, as it purported to do, capital sums brought from the home chest of the family but secreted profits of the business. It was held by their Lordships that the question really was for the Tribunal to draw the inference regarding the explanation submitted by the assessee and no question in such cases really arises for the High Court.