Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2007 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (9) TMI 226 - MADRAS HIGH COURTWhether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the burden cast on the assessee by Explanation (1B) to section 271(1)(c) stands discharged by the assessee providing basic information without substantiating the same? Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the onus of proving the source for the share application money is not entirely on the assessee but largely on the Assessing Officer? Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer has to prove that the cash credit is unexplained or that the explanation given is not true, to make an addition under section 68 of the Income-tax Act? Held that:- The ultimate fact finding authority- the Tribunal in its order, which is impugned in these appeals, has recorded a clear finding to the effect that in the instant case, the Assessing Officer had listed the shareholders and found some of them were retired employees of the bank, some of them were working employees of the bank and rest of them were agriculturists. The Assessing Officer did not dispute that those persons did not exist. Though the Assessing Officer directed the assessee-company to produce the persons, he did not take the minimum pain of issuing notice to anyone of the persons when the details about them were very much available with him. Thus the Assessing Officer failed in his duty and obligation to disprove the claim of the assessee to the effect that the depositors were not genuine persons. The Tribunal further recorded a finding that the action of the Assessing Officer in arriving at a conclusion that the persons with low salary income would not have mobilised the fund was based on wild guess and doubting the capacity of the persons on surmises. It further held that the Assessing Officer failed to prove that the shareholders were not possessing money to pay the share application money. According to the Tribunal, the assessee discharged the onus cast upon it by providing the basic materials and it was the Assessing Officer who failed to prove the contrary. Appeal dismissed.
|