Punjab-Haryana High Court
Todar Mal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 11 October, 1976
Equivalent citations: [1977]106ITR619(P&H)
JUDGMENT
O. Chinnappa Reedy, Actg. C.J.
1. The Income-tax Officer found that a cash credit of Rs. 10,000 in the name of Shri Narinder Kumar was not acceptable as he did not have sufficient means to advance that amount of money to the assessee. This amount was added to the income of the assessee.
On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed that Narinder Kumar did not have the capacity to own Rs. 10,000. But the Appellate Assistant Commissioner found that out of the cash credit of Rs. 10,000, Rs. 3,000 could be explained as income from agricultural land and, therefore, gave the assessee relief of Rs. 3,000. On further appeal to the Tribunal, while the finding regarding Narinder Kumar's capacity was confirmed, further relief was given to the assessee in a sum of Rs. 3,000. In the net result a sum of Rs. 4,000 was added to the income of the assessee. The assessee has riled an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, to require the Tribunal to state a case. The learned counsel for the assessee, relying on a decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC), urges that some more evidence is necessary to hold that the amount is the income of the assessee than the fact that the assessee has not been able to explain the cash credit. In view of Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the argument is no longer sustainable. Section 68 provides that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as income of the assessee.
2. The application is, therefore, rejected. No costs.