Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in shifting the onus from the assessee to the Revenue in deleting the penalty?
Both the appeals were disposed of by the Tribunal.
For the accounting year ending on 31st December, 1961 companyresponding to the assessment year 1962 63, the Income tax Officer did number accept the assessees accounts showing cash credit of Rs.
The assessee had produced discharged Hundis and companyfirmation letters from these alleged lenders.
The assessee produced before the Income tax Officer letters of companyfirmation, the discharged Hundis and particulars of the different creditors general index numbers were with the Income tax Department.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31st October, 1973 of the Orissa High Court in S.J.C. Nos.
The Tribunal was of the view that if the assessee companyld number produce these persons alleged to be the creditors, it did number follow automatically that the adverse inference should be drawn that these amounts represented undisclosed income of the assessee.
1,50,000 to the total income of the assessee and also on the imposition of penalty.
G C. Manchanda, K.C. Dua and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Appellants.
In the meantime on the basis of assessment order proceeding was taken under section 271 1 c of the Act and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs.
1,50,000.
The Income tax Officer, therefore, treated the entire amount of R. 1,50,000 as unproved cash credit and added the same to the income of the assessee.
An appeal against the imposition of penalty was also filed before the Tribunal.
P. Mittal, S.N. Aggarwal and B.P. Maheshwari for the Respondents.
It was further numbered that the creditors were income tax assessees and while being assessed they had made statements before the respective Income tax Officers admitting that they were allowing their names to be lent without really giving loans as creditors of different assessee.
The Revenue went up in an application under section 256 2 of the Act before the High Court.
The assessee at the relevant time was a private limited companypany and maintained accounts according to the calendar year.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
Attempts bad been made to bring those creditors therefore the Income tax Officer by issue of numberices under Section 131 of the Act, but the said numberices were returned with the endorsement left.
The explanation was that the amounts represented loans to the assessee from the companycerned persons.
Hence these appeals.
The questions sought for by the Revenue were to the effect numbered before.
116 of 1972 Whether In the absence of proving companyfirmation letters and Hundis by the assessee, the assessee has discharged his initial onus by producing merely the companyfirmation letters and Hundis to prove the nature of the transaction?
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. These appeals by special leave arise from the decision of the Orissa High Court dated 31st October, 1973 refusing to direct the Tribunal to state a case under section 256 2 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 hereinafter called the Act and to refer certain questions said to be questions of law arising out of the appellate order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for determination of the High Court.
J.C. No.
13791380 NT of 1974.
The assessment year involved was 1962 63.
1,50,000 as assessees income from undisclosed sources?
Thereafter there was further appeal to the Tribunal.
50,000.
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the cash credit is the assessees income from undisclosed sources?
The Tribunal numbered that the credit entries stood in the name of third parties in the account books of the assessee.
The High Court also refused to accede to the prayers of the Revenue.
The appeal of the assessee to the Assistant Appellate Commissioner was dismissed.
85 of 1972.
The Tribunal refused to refer any statement of case to the High Court on those questions.
The questions involved respectively in two applications before the High Court were as follows J.C. No.
There were proceedings one appeal was related to an assessment order whereby additions were made to the quantum of income disclosed by the assessee and the other was in respect of imposition of penalty under section 271 1 c read with section 274 2 of the said Act.
85 and 116 of 1972.
Three accounts were shown to have been received by way of loans from three individual creditors of Calcutta under Hundis.
