- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Commissioner Of Income Tax, U.P v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad .
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent–a partnership firm engaged in the trade of hand-loom cloth and silk fabrics with a head office at Banaras and a branch at Madura—was assessed to income tax for Assessment Year 1946-47. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) rejected the firm’s books as unreliable, estimated business profits by applying a flat rate of 12.5 % to total turnover, and independently treated a cash credit entry of Rs 20,000 (dated 15 January 1945 in the name of M/s. Banshidhar Rawatmal, Ratangarh) as income from an undisclosed source.
The assessee’s appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) failed. The Tribunal held that the explanation offered by Banshidhar was unreliable and affirmed both the profit estimation and separate addition.
An application under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, requesting the Tribunal to state a case to the High Court, was dismissed. Exercising Section 66(2) jurisdiction, the Allahabad High Court nevertheless directed a reference on whether there was “any material” to treat the Rs 20,000 as income from “some other source” separate from the estimated business income. The Tribunal complied and referred the framed question.
After detailed consideration, the High Court answered the question in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax obtained a certificate and appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the question framed by the High Court under Section 66(2)—regarding the source of the Rs 20,000 cash credit—actually arose out of the Tribunal’s appellate order.
- Consequentially, whether there was material to hold that the Rs 20,000 represented the assessee’s income from a source other than the business whose profits had been estimated.
Arguments of the Parties
Assessee’s Arguments
- The Rs 20,000 was a genuine deposit made by M/s. Banshidhar Rawatmal, supported by the latter’s statement and other witness testimony; therefore it could not be treated as undisclosed income.
- The ITO erred in discarding the books of account and in estimating profit on turnover.
- (Before the High Court) Because the amount was entered in the business books, it had merged with the estimated business income and could not be taxed separately as “income from other sources.”
Revenue’s (Commissioner’s) Arguments
- The assessee never contended before the Tribunal that the cash credit formed part of business income; only genuineness of the entry and the correctness of profit estimation were argued.
- Under law, unexplained cash credits and estimated business profits can both be taxed; the burden lies on the assessee to prove that the credit, if income, is from an already-taxed source.
- The High Court lacked jurisdiction to compel a reference on a question not argued or decided by the Tribunal.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT | The Income-tax Officer may, in an appropriate case, both estimate business profits after rejecting books and separately tax unexplained cash credits. | Cited to affirm that taxing both estimated profits and unexplained credits is permissible in principle, though it depends on case-specific facts. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Justice Shah, writing for the Supreme Court, held that the pivotal inquiry was jurisdictional: whether the question directed by the High Court arose out of the Tribunal’s order.
- The Tribunal’s appellate order records that only two points were argued: (a) genuineness of the Banshidhar deposit, and (b) propriety of rejecting the books and estimating profit. No contention was advanced that, even if unexplained, the Rs 20,000 had merged into estimated business income.
- Under Section 66, a reference can be compelled only on questions that were argued before and decided by the Tribunal. By formulating a new question, the High Court exceeded its statutory authority.
- On the substantive point, the Court reiterated the principle from Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif that an unexplained cash credit may be assessed separately; the ITO need not pinpoint its precise source. The burden shifts to the assessee to show that such credit, if income, is from a source already taxed.
- Because the framed question did not validly arise, the Court declined to answer it.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; High Court’s order discharged; question declined to be answered.
Consequences: The assessee loses the relief granted by the High Court; the Tribunal’s original assessment—treating Rs 20,000 as income from an undisclosed source in addition to estimated business profits—stands reinstated. The decision does not set new precedent but reinforces existing jurisprudence on (i) the scope of High Court reference jurisdiction under Section 66 and (ii) the assessability of unexplained cash credits alongside estimated business income. Costs were awarded to the Commissioner in both the Supreme Court and the High Court.
Shah, J.— The respondent is a firm dealing in handloom cloth and silk fabrics and has its head office at Banaras and a branch office at Madura. In proceedings for assessment for Assessment Year 1946-47 the Income Tax Officer declined to rely upon the books of account of the assessee, and estimated the business profits of the assessee by applying a flat rate of 12-1/2% to the turnover of the business. The Income Tax Officer also found in the books of account an entry dated January 15, 1945 of a deposit of Rs 20,000 in the name of M/s Banshidhar Rawatmal of Ratangarh. The Income Tax Officer called upon the assessee to prove the nature and source of this deposit and after considering the evidence produced by the assessee rejected the plea of the assessee that the amount was deposited by M/s Banshidhar Rawat Mal. In the view of the Income Tax Officer the amount of Rs 20,000 represented the assessee's income from some undisclosed source.
2. The order relating to the addition of Rs 20,000 in addition to the estimated income was challenged before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and before the Tribunal, but without success. The Tribunal was of the view that the evidence of M/s Banshidhar of Banshidhar Rawatmal that he had Rs 20,000 which he received from his Jajman was unreliable, and that the Income Tax Officer was right in estimating the turnover from sales and in applying a rate for determination of the profit. It was not argued before the Tribunal that if the case of the assessee that the amount of Rs 20,000 was deposited by M/s Banshidhar Rawatmal with him it should be treated as income which was part of the business of the assessee in handloom cloth and silk fabrics.
3. An application filed by the assessee under Section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act to submit a statement of case to the High Court of Allahabad was rejected. But the High Court directed the Tribunal to submit a statement of case on the question whether there was “any material to hold that the sum of Rs 20,000 was income of the assessee from some other source, and was not income included in the assessed income on the rejection of the books of account”. Pursuant to this direction, the Tribunal submitted a statement of the case raising the following question:
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material to hold that the sum of Rs 20,000 was income of the assessees from some other source and was not income included in the assessed income on the rejection of the books of account?”
The Tribunal in making the reference observed that at no stage of the proceeding did the assessee urge that the sum of Rs 20,000 “got merged with the estimate of profit made in the business at the head office”: the only objection raised by the assessee was that the sum should not have been added as income from some undisclosed source.
4. The High Court considered the matter in great detail and recorded an answer in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner has appealed against that order with a certificate granted by the High Court.
5. There is nothing in law which prevents the Income Tax Officer in appropriate case in taxing both the cash credit the source and nature of which is not satisfactorily explained and the business income estimated by him under Section 13 of the Income Tax Act, after rejecting the books of account of the assessee as unreliable. This was so decided in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT. Whether in a given case the Income Tax Officer may tax the cash credit entered in the books of account of the business, and at the same time estimate the profit must, however, depend upon the facts of each case.
6. It is unnecessary to elaborate this question in this case, because in our view the question on which the High Court directed the Tribunal to state a case and which the High Court answered did not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. As we have already stated, before the Tribunal at the hearing of the appeal under Section 33 of the Income Tax Act, only two questions were argued: (1) that the explanation of the assessee about the genuineness of the entry in the name of Banshidhar should be accepted, and (2) that the Income Tax Officer erred in discarding the books of account and in determining the profits from the estimated turnover of the business. No other contention was raised before the Tribunal hearing the appeal.
7. The application filed before the Tribunal under Section 66(1) for stating a case is not before the court but in the petition under, Section 66(2) before the High Court it was claimed that the following three questions arose out of the order of the Tribunal:
“(a) Whether in view of the statement of Banshidhar and other witnesses proving the deposit, it was still open to the department to treat the amount of Rs 20,000 belonging to Banshidhar as being income from undisclosed source.
(b) Whether there was any further burden of proof to have been discharged by the assessee in respect of the item of Rs 20,000 in order to be income from being taxed for Rs 20,000 for a sum not belonging to the applicant.
(c) Whether it was competent to the department, both to add to the
quantity of sales and the rate in the circumstances of the case.”
8. The High Court in disposing of the application under Section 66(2) expressed the view that because the amount of Rs 20,000 was entered in the books of account of the business, there was some material to hold that the amount was income of the assessee from the business and not from other source. But it was not open to the High Court to direct the Tribunal to state a case on a question which was never raised before or decided by the Tribunal at the hearing of the appeal. The question again assumes that it was for the Income Tax Officer to indicate the source of the income before the income could be held taxable and unless he did so, the assessee was entitled to succeed. That is not, in our judgment, the correct legal position. Where there is an explained cash credit, it is open to the Income Tax Officer to hold that it is income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the Income Tax Officer to show that that income is from any particular source. It is for the assessee to prove that even if the cash credit represents income it is income from a source which has already been taxed.
9. We discharge the order recorded by the High Court and allow the appeal. We decline to answer the question because in our judgment the question did not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. The assessee will pay the costs of the Commissioner in this Court and in the High Court.
Alert