TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Court because the amount involved is too small i.e. only Rs. 2500 - 178 of 1989 - - - Dated:- 3-7-2008 - SATISH KUMAR MITTAL and RAKESH KUMAR GARG JJ. Sanjeev Kaushik, for the Revenue. Sanjay Bansal, with Parshant Bansal and Parveen Saini, for the assessee. JUDGMENT SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. - The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9.5.1978, the assessee had shown a cash credit of Rs.10,000/- in the name of Prithi Singh. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer enquired about the genuineness of the said cash credit and asked the assessee to establish its genuineness. By that time, Prithi Singh had expired and the assessee came forward with an affidavit of Dharam Singh son of Prithi Singh in support ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal of the assessee was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner and the order of the Assessing Officer was confirmed. On further appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal, the Tribunal allowed the appeal while observing that in view of the facts stated by the lower authorities, the cash credit was undoubtedly not genuine, but in its opinion it could not be subjected to tax for the Assessment Year und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... small. For taking this view, we can draw support from the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, Rohtak vs. Shri K.L.Saluja, C/o M/s Bharat Tractor, Charkhi Dadri (Income Tax Reference No.36 of 1991, decided on February 21, 2005) wherein the question referred by the Tribunal was not considered by this Court because the amount involved was very small. This view is also supported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
