Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2008 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (7) TMI 957 - HC - Income TaxUnexplained deposits in bank account - addition on unsecured loans - creditworthiness of the loan creditors - Assessee had taken loan from 18 parties - AO accepted the loans taken from three persons and the balance amount out of total unsecured loans was opined to be not satisfactory explained and made addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- In the present case, a perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal reveals that assessee has discharged its onus to prove the genuineness of the cash credit by placing on record before the AO sufficient material/evidence. Not only the identity of the creditor has been established by producing the record of the assessee in which those transactions have been duly accounted for, but the assessee has also discharged its onus in explaining the nature of source and the cash credit. It is also well settled that the assessee can be made to explain the source of the credits in the books of account, but not the source of the source, i.e., source of the creditors. In our view, the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal while taking into consideration the material and documents and appreciating the evidence available on the record, have recorded a pure finding of fact which cannot be interfered by this court in appeal filed by the revenue. It has been held in Raichand Kothari (HUF) v. CIT[1996 (8) TMI 90 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT] that in cash credit cases the Tribunal is the final fact-finding body. Further, it has been held in CIT v. Shree Gopal & Co. [1993 (4) TMI 48 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT] that the High Court cannot, in a reference/appeal, embark upon a reappraisal of the evidence. The question of the genuineness of a credit or the correctness of the assessee’s explanation is a question of fact which cannot be interfered in appeal by this Court u/s 260A of the Act. Thus, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order as the counsel for the appellant could not point out any illegality or perversity in the said finding of fact. Therefore, in our opinion, no substantial question of law, much less a substantial question of law, is arising from the decision of the Tribunal. Dismissed.
|