Gokal Chand Mital, J. - These four references have been consolidated and, therefore, we propose to pass one order.
2. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Amritsar Bench) (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court :
(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the disallowances of Rs. 10,000, Rs. 5,898, Rs. 32,826 and Rs. 58,911 under the head 'Entertainment Expenses' for the asst. yrs. 1968-69, 1969-70, 1974-75 and 1975-76 ?'
(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,000 under the head 'Income from other sources' on account of the cash credit shown in the books of the assessee in the name of Shri Joginder Singh ?
3. M/s. Amritsar Transport Company (P.) Ltd. Amritsar (hereinafter called the assessee) is dealing in transport business. Common questions arise for the asst. yrs. 1968-69, 1969-70, 1974-75 and 1975-76 and that is why all the four reference applications were consolidated and disposed of by a common order by referring the above two questions relating to the aforesaid period. A reading of question No. 1 shows that it relates to the four assessment years.
4. As regards question No. 1 the counsel for the parties are agreed that the matter is covered by a Full Bench judgment of this Court in CIT, Amritsar-II v. Khem Chand Bahadur Chand in favour of the department and against the assessee and the answer is in the negative. Hence, we need not dilate on the facts for the purpose of the decision of this question and answer this question accordingly.
5. As regards the second question, a cash credit entry of Rs. 4,000 was found in the books of account of the assessee in the name of Joginder Singh. The ITO and the CIT (Appeals) disallowed this amount and added the same to the assessees income. The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 4,000 under the head 'Income from other sources' on appreciation of evidence by accepting the statement of Joginder Singh and found that the assessee had discharged the onus. We cannot go into the question of fact. Moreover, on the found facts, the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,000. Hence the second question is decided against the revenue and in favour of the assessee, i.e., in the affirmative.
6. Consequently, all the four reference applications stand disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.