Skip to content


Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sidh Gopal Gajanand. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMisc. I.T.A. No. 461 of 1975 connected with I.T.As. Nos. 456 to 460, 462 to 474 & 476, 551 to 55
Reported in(1978)7CTR(All)108
AppellantCommissioner of Income Tax
RespondentSidh Gopal Gajanand.
Excerpt:
- - 80 lacs has escaped assessment on account of assessees failure to file a return under s. it, inter alia, held that the department has failed to prove by cogent evidence that this association of persons had earned any on-money. 3. we have heard learned counsel for the parties, and we are satisfied that the finding on the question that the department has failed to establish that the association of persons earned any income outside the books is a finding of fact......the matter went up to the tribunal. it, inter alia, held that the department has failed to prove by cogent evidence that this association of persons had earned any on-money. therefore, there was no basis to assess it on an escapement of income of nearly rs. 60 lacs, as has been done by the income tax officer.3. we have heard learned counsel for the parties, and we are satisfied that the finding on the question that the department has failed to establish that the association of persons earned any income outside the books is a finding of fact. it is not vitiated by any error of law. it cannot be said that there was no material to sustain it. it cannot also be held that it was based upon a consideration of any non-admissible or irrelevant material.4. in view of this finding, the.....
Judgment:

Satish Chandra, J. - Firm Sidh Gopal Gajanand was, on 21st January, 1954, assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1949-50 in the status of a registered firm. On 16th March, 1966, the Income Tax Officer issued a notice under S. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking to reopen the assessment on the ground that -

'Part of the cloth manufactured by India United Mills Ltd. Bombay, during the accounting year (the decontrol period) was sold through Messrs Sidhopal Gajanand which has a branch in the name of Ganga Textiles at Kanpur. This is an association of persons and has earned about Rs. 80 lacs from this cloth business during the decontrol period. I have a reason to believe that this income of Rs. 80 lacs has escaped assessment on account of assessees failure to file a return under S. 22(1)'.

2. Ultimately the matter went up to the Tribunal. It, inter alia, held that the Department has failed to prove by cogent evidence that this association of persons had earned any on-money. Therefore, there was no basis to assess it on an escapement of income of nearly Rs. 60 lacs, as has been done by the Income Tax Officer.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, and we are satisfied that the finding on the question that the Department has failed to establish that the association of persons earned any income outside the books is a finding of fact. It is not vitiated by any error of law. It cannot be said that there was no material to sustain it. It cannot also be held that it was based upon a consideration of any non-admissible or irrelevant material.

4. In view of this finding, the variety of questions, some of which undoubtedly are of law, become merely of academic value. No useful purpose will be served by requiring the Tribunal to refer them for our opinion, because ultimately the result will be the same.

5. In this view the applications under S. 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are dismissed with costs, which are assessed at Rs. 125/-, one set.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //