3489, 3490 and 3491 of 1952 53.
42,000, the explanation of the appellant was that they represented the profits earned in a partnership companycern which carried on business in arrack during the years 1938 39 to 1944 45.
Likewise, for the assessment year 1946 47, he found that the income chargeable was Rs.
These amounts appear in the account books of a firm of which the appellant is a partner as credits from him.
It elaborately examined the evidence as to the gift of Rs.
54,500.
Ediga Thayappa and M. Govindaswamy mudaliar.
80,000 which was alleged to have been made by the appellants father to his aunt, and by her to him.
He also runs a lorry.
the appellant took the matter in further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and by its judgment, dated January 29, 1953, the Tribunal companyfirmed the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
His explanation was in two parts.
It rejected it as untrue.
the case of the appellant is that Ediga Thayappa was only a benamidar for him, and that the profits earned by the business during these years were the profits in which he had a share and that came to Rs.
Both the explanations of the appellant having been rejected, the Income tax officer held that the amounts in question represented companycealed income and imposed tax thereon.
42,000.
For the assessment year 1945 46, the Income tax Officer found that the income chargeable to tax was Rs.
As regards the balance of about Rs.
27,500 and for the assessment year 1947 48, he held that it was Rs.
The appellant was asked to give an explanation as to how he came to possess these amounts.
The appellant appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who again, on an investigation of the facts, agreed with the companyclusions of the Income tax officer.
The partners of that firm were two persons, viz.,
This story was rejected by the Income tax officer.
54,600.
80,000 in the arrack business companyducted by him, that he had this amount with him when he died which was in the year 1936, that prior to his death he entrusted this amount to the assessees aunt, that she died in 1944, and before here death, she handed this amount over to the appellant.
he firstly stated his farther had made a profits of about Rs.
Venkatarama Aiyar, J. These are appeals by special leave against the decision of the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, madras, dated January 29, 1953, passed in three appeals I.T.A. Nos.
The appellant carries on business in arrack.
