S L GANERIWAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with the prayer that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short, "the Tribunal"), be asked to state the case and refer the following questions of law for the opinion of this court:

(2.) S.L. Ganeriwal was the proprietor of M/s. Ganeriwal Industries, A-6, Industrial Estate, Jaipur. The original assessment under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act), was completed on October 30, 1974, and the income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 4,340. Subsequently, a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on November 21, 1980, after obtaining the necessary approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur, which was served on the assessee on November 27, 1980. In compliance with the said notice, the assessee filed a return on December 1, 1980, declaring an income of Rs. 4,340, i.e., the same sum on which he was assessed under order dated October 30, 1974. The assessing authority, under its order dated March 1, 1985, for the assessment year 1974-75, framed the assessment order and the total taxable income was shown to be Rs. 19,570. It appears that a sum of Rs. 15,000 was added to the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. The said amount of Rs. 15,000 is said to have been deposited in cash by Rao Bikram Singh with the assessee and not through cheque. The assessing authority, under the aforesaid order of assessment, came to the conclusion that the assessee had failed to discharge the burden of proving the genuineness of the deposit of Rs. 15,000. The burden was on him to prove the genuineness of the cash credit, but he failed to discharge the onus. The assessing authority came to the conclusion that the amount of Rs. 15,000 deposited in the assessee's books of account in the name of Rao Bikram Singh was his own money which he introduced in the name of Rao Bikram Singh. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order before the Commissioner of Income-tax who, under its order dated March 20, 1986, dismissed the appeal. The Commissioner of Income-tax held that the Income-tax Officer had specific information that the loan of Rs. 15,000 was only a hawala entry and not a genuine loan from Rao Bikram Singh and, therefore, reopening of the assessment under Section 148 of the Act was in accordance with law. The Commissioner of Income-tax further held that the assessing authority was justified in treating the sum of Rs. 15,000 as unexplained and as the assessee's income for the year. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, and the Tribunal, vide its order dated June 25, 1987, in agreement with the Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax, said that the assessee had failed to discharge the burden that lay upon him to prove the genuineness of the cash credit entry.