LAXMI NARAIN GUPTA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Patna Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the undermentioned question of law for the opinion of this court:

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to the said question arc that the assessee, an individual, while being assessed in respect of his share income from a partnership business for the assessment year 1969-70, his capital account in the books of the firm, M/s. Baldeo Prasad Basudeo Prasad, in which he was a partner, indicated a cash deposit of Rs. 25,500. THE assessee explained the source of the said cash deposit to be the share of his income from a joint venture with one Baleshwar Prasad. THE assessee's share from the said joint venture was Rs. 38,500. THE ITO now assessing the assessee's income for the assessment year 1969-70, besides assessing the share income of the assessee from the said firm, added Rs. 38,500 as the assessee's income from undisclosed sources. THE accounting period taken for the purpose of the said assessment for the said assessment year was the year ending the 30th of September, 1968. To put it in other words, although the sum of Rs. 38,500 was being assessed as income from undisclosed sources, the ITO adopted the accounting period, which was for the assessee's business income, as the accounting year for the income from undisclosed sources as well and assessed it for the assessment year 1969-70.

(3.) MR. Jain, appearing for the petitioner-assessee, has urged that admittedly the sum of Rs. 38,500 had been treated as the assessee's income from undisclosed sources. That being the admitted fact, the relevant accounting year for which the said income could be assessed would be the financial year ending on the 31st March, 1969, and not the year ending the 30th September, 1968. This amount could not, therefore, have been assessed along with the income assessed for the accounting year ending on the 30th September, 1968. In support of his argument, he has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Baladin Ram v. CIT [1969] 71 ITR 427. We will deal with this case at an appropriate place. He, therefore, submitted that the question must be answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee.