COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SAH SWAROOP NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as " the Act "), praying that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Tribunal "), be directed to state the case and refer the following questions of law to this court arising out of the Tribunal's order dated July 30, 1977 :

(2.) LET us now turn to the facts of the case. For the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee filed a return declaring a loss of Rs. 1,769. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the ITO noticed a cash credit of Rs. 17,000, in the name of Gauri Shankar Mittal. The ITO examined Gauri Shanker Mittal and came to the conclusion that Gauri Shanker Mittal was not in a position to make a large deposit of Rs. 17,000. Consequently, he added Rs. 17,000 to the income of the assessee as income from undisclosed source. The assessee filed an appeal before the AAC and produced additional evidence before him. He examined one Shri Nathu Ram, through whom the deposit in question is said to have been made. The AAC did not accept the assessee's explanation and upheld the order of the ITO. The assessee took the matter further to the Appellate Tribunal but was unsuccessful. The ITO had also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and since the minimum penalty leviable exceeded Rs. 1,000, he referred the matter to the IAC concerned. The assessee produced evidence before the IAC to prove that the cash credit entry was genuine, but the IAC did not accept the assessee's explanation and imposed a penalty of Rs. 18,260.

(3.) IN the present case, the contention raised on behalf of the revenue that the finding is perverse is not at all substantiated.