BRIJLAL GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS is an IT reference. which comes to us on a requisition by this Court under s. 66(2) of the IT Act. The question which has been referred to us for our opinion is as follows : "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Department discharged its burden of proof in establishing that the sum of Rs. 5,000 was income of the assessee within the meaning of the word 'income' as given in s. 28(1)(c) of the IT Act -
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the reference may be stated as follows During the asst. yr. 1946 -47 the ITO discovered certain cash deposits in the Amanat Khata of the assessee. The entries were as follows : Debit . Rs. Credit . Rs. Rokar Panna 31 Magh B.I Samwat 2,001, i.e., 30 -12 -44 Nakad Byopari ka Rakhatha so Deya Gaya . . . 3,000 Rokar Panna 27 Pus S. 7 (i.e., 22 -12 -44) Byopari ka Nakad . . . 3,000 The ITO added the amount of Rs. 5,000 as the concealed income of the assessee from business. In doing so the ITO observed : "The Amanat Khata shows a deposit of Rs. 3,000 on Pus s. 7 which was withdrawn on Magh B. I. Then again a sum of Rs. 5,000 was deposited on Chait s. 7 and was withdrawn on Baisakh s. 9. The cash book shows that the cash was received from byopari but the name of byopari is not given. It has been contended by the assessee that Rs. 3,000 was deposited and then withdrawn and thereafter Rs. 5,000 was deposited. The sum of Rs. 3,000 is thus covered by the deposit of Rs. 5,000. However, considering the particular circumstances of the case, I add Rs. 5,000 for profit undisclosed."
(3.) ON appeal before the AAC, this addition was confirmed. He observed : "For the profit of Rs. 5,000 the name of the depositor is not available in the account books nor any evidence has been given. I am, therefore, not prepared to interfere with the finding of the ITO that the sum of Rs. 5,000 represents profits from some undisclosed sources." ;