JUDGMENT Narasimham, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, stating the following case for the opinion of this Court, viz. - “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the deletion of the cash credit by the Tribunal is against the provisions of Section 68 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961?” 2. The opposite party is an unregistered firm, which was assessed to income-tax during the year 1963-64 for the accounting period which ended on the 28th October, 1962. One of the partners of the firm is Shri Prasadi Sah. The Income-Tax Officer, while scrutinising the accounts of the firm, noticed a cash credit of Rs. 5,000/- in the personal account of Prasadi Sah. When questioned, Prasadi Sah stated that the amount was a gift from his mother-in-law, Musammat Radhia. She was examined before the Income-Tax Officer; but that officer was not satisfied with her evidence, and, while rejecting the same, he held as follows : “In the absence of any evidence in support of what Musammat Radhia stated before me, and who, I have no doubt, came to state only to save the face of her son-in-law, I hold that the sum of Rs. 5,000 was out of the firm's income from source known only to the assessee.” Hence, he added it to the assessee's income as income from undisclosed source. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed this portion of the order with following observation: “But, in view of the facts stated by the I.T.O., I think that he was right including this amount in the appellant's income. All the same, the appellant is not understood to have any other business or source of income. There is nothing on record to indicate that he could have any other source of income except the business run by him. Hence, I think this amount only indicates secreted business profits.” When the matter went up to the Tribunal, the tribunal set aside this portion of the order with the following observation: “As regards the cash credit since the investment appears in the personal account of the partner, he has to explain this in his personal assessment, and it cannot be considered in the firm's assessment, and accordingly we delete the cash credit addition of Rs. 5,000-.” 3. 5,000-.” 3. It will be noticed that though the Tribunal is a final Court of fact, it did not discuss or decide as to whether the explanation of Prasadi Sah that this sum was a gift to him from his mother-in-law was acceptable or not. the concurrent findings of the Income-Tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner are to the effect that this explanation was not acceptable, that Prasadi Sah has no other source of income, and that consequently this sum, though credited in his personal account, must, in the circumstances, be held to have been obtained from him from secreted profits of the firm. This finding was not disturbed by the Tribunal. Merely because the sum is shown in the personal account of the partner, it does not necessarily follow that it is not the secreted profits of the business unless the Tribunal further holds that Prasadi Sah had other sources of income, and this sum was obtained by him from those source. As no such finding was given by the Tribunal, it must be held that, inasmuch as Prasadi Sah had no other source of income, this sum was obtained from him from the business profits of the assessee firm. 4. The Tribunal's order is clearly in contravention of Section 68 of the Act read with Section 183, As the assessee is an unregistered firm, the income-tax authorities are bound by Clause (a) of Section 183 to determine the tax payable by the firm itself on the basis of the total income of the firm. The special circumstances, under which, by virtue of Clause (b) of Section 183, the assessment may be made on the basis of the tax payable by the partners of the firm individually, have admittedly no application here because the Tribunal did not purport to proceed under Clause (b) of Section 183. 5. The special circumstances, under which, by virtue of Clause (b) of Section 183, the assessment may be made on the basis of the tax payable by the partners of the firm individually, have admittedly no application here because the Tribunal did not purport to proceed under Clause (b) of Section 183. 5. Section 68 is 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.” For the purpose of attracting the principle of this Section, it is sufficient if (1) a sum is found credited in the books of the assessee firm and (2) the assessee either offers no explanation about the nature and source or else the explanation offered is not satisfactory. Here, after disbelieving the explanation of Prasadi Sah and holding that he has no other source of income, it necessarily follows that the sum shown in the accounts of the firm, though credited in his personal account, is credited in the books of account of the firm. The Income-Tax authorities were, therefore, justified in including it in the income of the firm. Hence, there was no justification for excluding the sum from the income of the assessee. The Tribunal's observation, without disturbing the findings of fact of the lower authorities that, inasmuch as the sum is shown in the personal account of the partner, he has to explain its source in his personal assessment and that it cannot be considered in the firm's assessment, is based on a complete disregard of the provisions of: Section 68 read with Section 183(a) of the Act. Mr. Shambhu Sharan cited certain decisions under the old Income-Tax Act; but they have no application because Section 68 was expressly inserted in the new Act mainly with a view to prevent evasion, and full effect must be given to it. 6. For those reasons, I answer the question in the affirmative, and hold that the deletion of the cash credit by the Tribunal was against the provisions of Section 68 of the Income- Tax Act, 1961. The opposite party must pay costs of Rs. 100/-to the petitioner. 6. For those reasons, I answer the question in the affirmative, and hold that the deletion of the cash credit by the Tribunal was against the provisions of Section 68 of the Income- Tax Act, 1961. The opposite party must pay costs of Rs. 100/-to the petitioner. Question answered in affirmative B.N. Jha, J. I agree.