Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (1.13 seconds)Smt. Srilekha Banerjee And Others vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar And ... on 27 March, 1963
Dr. Pal next cited Sreelekha Banerjee v. Commissioner of Income-tax and relied on the following observations of the Supreme Court at page 120.
Ram Kishan Das Munnu Lal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U. P. & V. P. on 13 September, 1960
The next case, Ram Kishan Das Munnu Lal v. Commissioner of Income-tax is a decision which was decided by the Allahabad High Court in favour of the assessee on the peculiar fact of the case. B, K and R were some of the members of a joint Hindu family. In the account books of the firm in which B was a partner in his individual capacity, certain cash deposits were credited in the name of K, R and Bs mother. Those amounts were not treated as the income of the firm but the family was called upon to explain the deposits and show cause why the amounts should not be treated as its income. The explanation given was not believed and the aggregate of the amounts was assessed as the income of the family. It was held that the assessee family in this case, could not be said to have received the amounts in question at all. In that case, the learned counsel for income-tax department fairly conceded that there was no material other than the rejection of the explanation on which a finding could be legally based that the amounts were the income of the family. It was clear that the cash credits were found in the books of account of a firm and it was also found that there was nothing to show that the assessee family received the amounts in question at all. It is true that the deposits in the books of account of the firm were made in the names of persons who happened to be members of the assessee joint family. But mere relationship of those persons to the assessee family cannot be a good ground for assuming that the deposits belonged to the assessee family and not to those persons. It is in that connection that the Allahabad High Court has observed :
Messrs Mehta Parikh & Co vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay on 10 May, 1956
Several cases were referred to us by the learned counsel for the assessee and the revenue and we may now discuss them. The first case relied on by Dr. Pal is Mehta Parikh & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax which happened to be a case on high denomination notes. The assessee encashed on 18th January, 1946, high denomination notes of Rs. 1,000 each, of the face value of Rs. 61,000. The Income-tax Officer rejected the assessees explanation and assessed the whole amount as undisclosed profit. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, the assessee produced affidavit from some persons to the effect that Rs. 43,000 were paid in one thousand Rupees notes during the relevant period. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not accept the affidavit and confirmed the order of the Income-tax Officer. The Appellate Tribunal thereafter accepted the assessees explanation as to Rs. 31,000, but rejected as to Rs. 30,000. The Bombay High Court confirmed the Tribunals order. The Supreme Court, in allowing the appeal and reversing the High Courts order, made the following observations at page 189 :
Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd., Madurai vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 19 September, 1966
These are sound propositions of law to which there cannot be any question of our disagreement. The principles have been more fully discussed in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull, where the Supreme Court followed the principles laid down in their earlier decision in Srii Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. In that case two sums of Rs. 5 lakhs each were rendered in cash on different dates at the Burrabazar branch of the Central Bank and transferred to the head office at Bombay. Demand drafts for those amounts were issued by the Bombay office on its Jamnagar branch. A third remittance of Rs. 5 lakhs was made through the Burrabazar branch directly to the Jamnagar branch. At Jamnagar these three sums were severally held in fixed deposit in the names of R, G, and S, who were sons of the three partners of the assessee firm. The deposit in Rs name was adjusted against an overdraft of the assessee-firm and the assessees account books showed a corresponding credit in favour of R. Similarly, Gs name was utilized for securing overdraft facilities for the assessee-firm. But the third sum of Rs. 5 lakhs, which happened to be held in the name of S, was offered as a security for overdraft to a company, in the managing agency of which the partners of the assessee-firm had a controlling interest. The Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that the amounts deposited in the name of R and G represented secret profits of the assessee-firm. There the Tribunal found no connecting link between the third remittance and the assessee and decided in favour of the assessee in respect of this amount. The Supreme Court in refusing to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal reiterated the principles laid down in the said earlier case and made the following observations at page 579 :
Orient Trading Co Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central), ... on 20 March, 1964
Our attention was also drawn to the following observation of the Bombay High Court in Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, at page 735 :
Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central), ... vs Daulatram Rawatmull on 26 March, 1964
These are sound propositions of law to which there cannot be any question of our disagreement. The principles have been more fully discussed in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull, where the Supreme Court followed the principles laid down in their earlier decision in Srii Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. In that case two sums of Rs. 5 lakhs each were rendered in cash on different dates at the Burrabazar branch of the Central Bank and transferred to the head office at Bombay. Demand drafts for those amounts were issued by the Bombay office on its Jamnagar branch. A third remittance of Rs. 5 lakhs was made through the Burrabazar branch directly to the Jamnagar branch. At Jamnagar these three sums were severally held in fixed deposit in the names of R, G, and S, who were sons of the three partners of the assessee firm. The deposit in Rs name was adjusted against an overdraft of the assessee-firm and the assessees account books showed a corresponding credit in favour of R. Similarly, Gs name was utilized for securing overdraft facilities for the assessee-firm. But the third sum of Rs. 5 lakhs, which happened to be held in the name of S, was offered as a security for overdraft to a company, in the managing agency of which the partners of the assessee-firm had a controlling interest. The Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that the amounts deposited in the name of R and G represented secret profits of the assessee-firm. There the Tribunal found no connecting link between the third remittance and the assessee and decided in favour of the assessee in respect of this amount. The Supreme Court in refusing to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal reiterated the principles laid down in the said earlier case and made the following observations at page 579 :
1