ROOPCHAND MANOJ KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as per direction of this court, the Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question to this court :

(2.) THE relevant facts are that in the course of assessment proceedings for the year 1987-88, the Income-tax Officer was not satisfied about the genuineness of the two entries of cash credit in the name of Smt. Probha Bothra and Kumari Sunita Bothra of Rs. 9,000 each. THE Income-tax Officer called upon the assessee to produce the creditors, whereupon one Kamal Chand Bothra, elder brother and legal guardian of the two minor girls, appeared and the statement under Section 131 of the Act was recorded. THE Income-tax Officer, however, was not satisfied and was of the view that the above amounts are not genuine transactions and added the same, to the income of the assessee.

(3.) MR. U. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the Revenue, has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that in the present reference no question of law is involved and, as such, this court may decline to answer the question. The question before us is, whether the assessee could discharge his onus under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act ? The facts are definitely involved to answer the above question but that does not make it a pure question of fact. Relying on the decision of the apex court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Anusuya Devi, 1968 68 ITR 750, we reject the preliminary objection.