The Income tax Officer also found in the books of account an entry dated January 15, 1945, of a deposit of Rs.
20,000 represented the assessees income from some undisclosed source.
20,000 for a sum number belonging to the applicant.
20,000 got merged with the estimate of profit made in the business at the head office the only objection raised by the assessee was that the sum should number have been added as income from some undisclosed source.
20,000 in the name of Messrs. Banshidhar Rawatmal of Ratangarh.
20,000 was entered in the books of account of the business, there was some material to hold that the amount was income of the assessee from the business and number from some other source.
No other companytention was raised before the Tribunal hearing the appeal.
20,000 in order to be income from being taxed for Rs.
The tribunal was of the view that the evidence of Banshidhar of Messrs. Banshidhar Rawatmal that he had Rs.
But the High Court directed the Tribunal to submit a statement of case on the question whether there was any material to hold that the sum of Rs.
20,000 belonging to Banshidhar as being income from undisclosed source.
It was number argued before the Tribunal that if the case of the assessee that the amount of Rs.
In proceedings for assessment for the assessment year 1946 47 the Income tax Officer declined to rely upon the books of account of the assessee, and estimated the business profits of the assessee by applying a flat rate of 12 1/2 to the turnover of the business.
20,000 was deposited by Messrs. Banshidhar Rawatmal with him sic it would be treated as income which was part of the business of the assessee in handloom clothe and silk fabrics.
Pursuant to this direction, the Tribunal submitted a statement of the case raising the following question Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material to hold that the sum of Rs.
The companymissioner has appealed against that order with a certificate granted by the High Court.
20,000, in addition to the estimated income, was challenged before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and before the Tribunal, but without success.
20,000 which he received from his jajman was unreliable, and that the Income tax Officer was right in estimating the turnover from sales and in applying a rate for determination of the profit.
The Income tax Officer called upon the assessee to prove the nature and source of this deposit and, after companysidering the evidence produced by the assessee, rejected the plea of the assessee that the amount was deposited by Messrs. Banshidhar Rawatmal.
20,000 was income of the assessee from some other source and was number income included in the assessed income of the rejection of the books of account ?
But it was number open to the High Court to direct the Tribunal to state a case on a question which was never raised before or decided by the Tribunal at the hearing of the appeal.
20,000 was income of the assessee from some other source, and was number income included in the assessed income on the rejection of the books of account.
In the view of the Income tax Officer the amount of Rs.
An application filed by the assessee under section 66 1 of the Income tax Act to submit a statement of case to the High Court of Allahabad was rejected.
The order relating to the addition of Rs.
Shah, J. The respondent is a firm dealing in handloom cloth and silk fabrics and has its head office at Banaras and a branch office at Madura.
