Skip to content


Todar Mal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Case No. 5 of 1974
Judge
Reported in[1977]106ITR619(P& H)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 68
AppellantTodar Mal
RespondentCommissioner of Income-tax
Appellant Advocate G.C. Mittal and; Arun Jain, Advs.
Respondent Advocate D.N. Awasthy and; B.K. Jhingan, Advs.
Excerpt:
- sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & letters patent, 1865, clause 10: [dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] letters patent appeal order of single judge of high court passed while deciding matters filed under order 43, rule1 of c.p.c., - held, after introduction of section 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the.....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.....
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]87ITR349(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.


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