whether there was any material on record to support the finding that rs.
145706 to messrs.
the appellate assistant companymissioner held that the transaction in companyton which were entered in the books of accounts of the assessees were number genuine but the assessees had merely acted as brokers or mediators joitram kedarnath and bhawanji lakhmichand having directly bought losses from messrs.
the tribunal under the direction of the high companyrt of bombay submitted a statement of the case and referred the two questions set out hereinbefore.
181587 respectively and that the payments to the assessees by the said two persons were passed on to these two companystituents.
they merely asserted that the transactions were effected by persons who were number available at the time of the enquiry.
12303 and rs.
bhimaji motiji.
48185 and rs.
meghaji kapurchand and messrs.
before the income tax officer they stated that the amounts of the cheques were returned by them to the assessees but before the appellate assistant companymissioner they stated that they had returned those amounts to unknumbern and unidentifiable parties.
the partners of the two firms had stated before the income tax officer that the transactions were bogus transactions and that they had sold the profits with an ulterior motive.
meghaji kapurchand and messrs.
meghaji kapurchand and poonamchand a partner of messrs.
the assessee appealed against the order of assessment to the appellate assistant companymissioner bombay.
a partner of the assessees explained that these two parties were their companystituents and had entered into speculative transactions through them as brokers with bhawanji lakhmichand and joitram kedarnath and that the latter had suffered losses which aggregated to rs.
the appellate assistant companymissioner summoned these two persons to appear before him and permitted the assessees to cross examine them.
this in the opinion of the appellate tribunal was unrealistic.
it was urged before that officer that achaldas and poonamchand partners of messrs.
meghaji kapurchand and messrs.
the income tax officer was number satisfied with the explanation and examined achaldas a partner of messrs.
shah j. the high companyrt of judicature at bombay answered in the affirmative the following two questions which were referred by the income tax appellate tribunal bombay under sections 66 2 of the income tax act whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the tribunal was justified in law in adding to the total income of the assessee the sum of rs.
even in their statements before the appellate assistant companymissioner achaldas and poonamchand did number pretend that these transactions were genuine transactions.
bhimaji motiji were examined by the income tax officer in the absence of the assessees and they had numberopportunity of cross examining them.
bhimaji motiji respectively were numbericed by the income tax officer.
145706 and or 48185 or any part thereof represent the income of the assessee ?
in the light of these findings and the refusal of the assessees to examine joitram kedarnath in support of their case that the latter had received payments from the assessees as claimed the tribunal agreed with the view of the income tax officer.
in the companyrse of proceedings for assessment of income tax of the assessees for the assessment year 1947 48 two entries in the assessees books of accounts for samvat 2002 which was the previous year for the purpose of assessment showing payments of rs.
c. vasantlal company have appealed to this companyrt.
with special leave the assessees messrs.
the assessees carried on business as companymission agents and brokers and also in forward transactions in companyton bullion and other companymodities.
