COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. BAISHNAB CHARAN MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the SJC applications, i.e., SJC Nos. 124 of 1990 and 125 of 1990, have been taken up together as agreed and suggested by the learned advocates for the assessee and the Revenue authorities. SJC No. 124 of 1990 relates to the asst. year 1981 -82, whereas SJC No. 125 of 1990 relates to the asst. year 1979 -80. The aforesaid references arise at the instance of the CIT, Orissa, raising the following questions :

(2.) THE facts of the aforesaid cases reveal that for the asst. year 1979 -80, the assessee had shown two cash credits in the names of his two minor sons, namely, Biswajit Mohanty and Satyajit Mohanty, to the tune of Rs. 40,000 each and for the asst. year 1981 -82, the ITO found that there was a cash credit of Rs. 20,000 in the name of Smt. Nirupama Mohanty, the wife of the assessee. These were added to the income of the assessee. However, the CIT(A) held that the cash credits were proved and deleted the additions made by the ITO. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A). The Tribunal took into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and thereafter made a reasoned order that the cash credits were proved. Hence, the present questions have been referred.

(3.) MR . A.K. Ray, the learned advocate appearing for the Revenue authorities, has very strenuously argued the cases before us. He has mainly argued that the question as to whether the assessee has been able to discharge the onus as envisaged under S. 68 of the IT Act is a question of law and the appreciation made by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal is open to scrutiny by the High Court under reference. He has further developed his argument by submitting, inter alia, that whether the decision of the Tribunal on a finding of fact can be sustained or not would depend on the question at issue before the Tribunal. The materials which were required to be considered, the burden of proof lying on which party and how the Tribunal has assessed all the materials in the light of the proper approach are required to be scrutinised. According to him, though in isolation each point of evidence may appear to be of little weight, on an overall appreciation it would be permissible to consider the comulative effect and decide one way or the other. Reference was made to Gordhandas Hargovandas vs. CIT (1979) 12 CTR (Bom) 19 : (1980) 126 ITR 560 (Bom) and Fakhri Automobiles vs. CIT (1979) 9 CTR (Raj) 192 : (1980) 126 ITR 417 (Raj).