Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Bhaichand H. Gandhi on 12 February, 1982
Equivalent citations: 1983 53 CompCas 400 Bom
Bench: M Kania, M Chandurkar
JUDGMENT Kania, J.
1. The questions referred to us for determination in this reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (referred to hereinafter as “the said Act”), are as follows :
“(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that a cash credit for the previous year shown in the assessee’s bank pass book issued to him by the bank but not shown in the cash book maintained by him for that year does not fall within the ambit of section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and as such the sum so credited is not chargeable to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year ?
(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the deposit of Rs. 10,000 made by the assessee on January 20, 1961, in the bank was not includible under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in computing the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1962-63 ?”
2. In the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1962-63, for which the relevant previous year in the case of the assessee was Samvat year 2017, the ITO included Rs. 30,000 in the assessment on account of cash credits found in certain books which, according to the ITO, were the books of the assessee. The explanation offered by the assessee regarding the genuineness of these credits was not accepted by the ITO and he treated the amount as income from undisclosed sources. On an appeal by the assessee, the AAC confirmed the view of the ITO. On a further appeal to the Tribunal by the assessee, an argument was put forward on behalf of the assessee that in respect of one of the deposits included in the said sum of Rs. 30,000, namely, a deposit of Rs. 10,000, this deposit was shown on January 21, 1961, in the bank account of the assessee. It was contended on behalf of the assessee maintained by the assessee for the previous year ending on November 8, 1961 (Samvat year 2017) and that the bank pass book was not a book maintained by the assessee. It was contended on behalf of the assessee that the amount, even if treated as undisclosed income of the assessee, that the amount, even if treated as undisclosed income of the assessee, could only be assessed in the financial year. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee holding that the said bank pass book could not be treated as a book of the assessee, as contended by the Department, and held that it was not a book maintained by the assessee for any previous year as referred to in s. 68 of the said Act. It is from this decision that the aforesaid questions have been referred to us.
3. Section 68 of the said Act says as follows :
“Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Income-tax Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year.”
4. In Baladin Ram v. CIT  71 ITR 427, it has been held by the Supreme Court that it is now well settled that the only possible way in which income from an undisclosed source can be assessed or reassessed is to make the assessment on the basis that the previous year for such an income would be the ordinary financial year. Even under the provisions embodied in s. 68 of the said Act, it is only when any amount is found credited in the books of the amount so credited may be charged to tax as the income of that previous year, if the assessee offers no explanation or the explanation offered by him is not satisfactory.
5. As the Tribunal has pointed out, it is fairly well settled that when moneys are deposited in a bank, the relationship that is constituted between the banker and the customer is one of debtor and creditor and not of trustee and beneficiary. Applying this principle, the pass book supplied by the bank to its constituent is only a copy of the constituent’s account in the books maintained by the bank. It is not as if the pass book is maintained by the bank as the agent of the constituent, not can it be said that the pass book is maintained by the bank under the instructions of the constituent. In view of this, the Tribunal was, with respect, justified in holding that the pass book supplied by the bank to the assessee in the present case could not be regarded as a book of the assessee, that is, a book maintained by the assessee or under his instructions. In our view, the Tribunal was justified in the conclusions at which it arrived.
6. In the result, the questions referred to us are answered as follows :
Question No. 1 : In the affirmative.
Question No. 2 : In the negative.
7. It is clarified that both the questions are answered in favour of the assessee.
8. The Commissioner to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.