Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. We do not think that there is any conflict or inconsistency between the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Govindarajulu Mudaliar's case and Mehta Parikh & Co.'s case. In our view, they indicate different aspects of the same matter. We shall first examine the decision in Mehta Parikh & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. In that case, the assessee encashed 61 high denomination notes of the value of Rs. 1,000 each on 18th January, 1946. This was done pursuant to the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Ordinance, 1946, promulgated on 12th January, 1946. For the assessment year 1947-48, for which the accounting year was the calendar year 1946, the Income-tax Officer called upon the assessee to explain the possession of these 61 high denomination notes. The assessee submitted that they were received by him in the course of his business, and that they formed part of the cash balance, which was Rs. 69,891-2-6 on January 12, 1946. The explanation was rejected both by the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner; and the whole amount was treated as income from undisclosed sources. The Appellate Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation to the extent of Rs. 31,000. The assessee took the matter to the High Court by a reference. The High Court held that there was sufficient material to justify the inference drawn by the Tribunal that Rs. 30,000 was the assessee's income from undisclosed sources. The assessee appealed to the Supreme Court. It examined the facts of the case, and held that as the whole sum of Rs. 61,000 representing the value of the high denomination notes was covered by the cash balances as per books of account of the assessee on the relevant dates, and as the books of account were found to be genuine, there was no justification not to accept the explanation of the assessee. The principle was stated as follows: