TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 977X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has taken a loan of Rs. 1 lakh on February 25, 1986, from Ram Kumar Brij Kishore, Kosi. The confirmation letter was filed. The loan was obtained by account payee cheque. However, the Assessing Officer held that the confirmation certificate has been signed by some alleged authorised representative signatory and no source from where the loan was given, has been mentioned. He, therefore, treated the loan as non-genuine and brought the same to tax under section 69A of the Act. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed the addition by observing that the bank statement of the creditor revealed a cash deposit of Rs. 50,000 on February 4, 1986, about which there was no explana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there are certain deposits in the account of the creditors, the issue could be examined in their hands and the assessee could not be asked to prove the source of such creditors. Asking source of such deposits will amount to asking the source of the source, which is not permitted under law. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Sarogi Credit Corporation v. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 344 and the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rohini Builders v. Deputy CIT [2001] 117 Taxman-Mag 25 (Ahd). On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative argued that the onus was on the assessee to prove the identity and credit worthiness of the creditor as well as the genuineness of the tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entries in the assessee s books of account. The Assam High Court in the case of Tolaram Daga v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 632 has held, as under : In the account of the firm deposit made by the party, the genuineness and regularity of the account has not been challenged, the accounts are relevant any prima facie proof of entry and the correctness thereof under section 34 of the Evidence Act to require the firm to adduce the source of depositors from where the deposit was made could not require under the law. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawat Mull [1973] 87 ITR 349 has considered similar issue. The Supreme Court held that in case a partner of the firm was not able to explain certain deposits in his name introduced in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... low yield of dall. The assessee is a manufacturer of dall. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the yield of dall declared by the assessee at 75.9 per cent. was low as compared to the yield of dall declared by Rajesh Dall Mills and Laxmi Dall Mills. Relying on the yield declared by the above two concerns, the Assessing Officer estimated the yield of dall at 78 per cent. and thereby made an addition of Rs. 62,000 on this account. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted the addition by observing that the yield of dall was competitive. The Revenue is in appeal against the findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). It is argued by the learned Departmental Representative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 per cent. which was competitive with the yield of 78 per cent. declared in the case of Rajesh Dall Mills. Considering these facts, we hold that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has rightly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. While upholding his findings, we dismiss the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue. Ground No. 2 relates to the deletion of the addition on account of excess kachari. In the manufacture of dall, the wastage in the shape of kachari is obtained. The assessee has claimed such kachari at 5.23 per cent. as compared to last year s kachari of 3.37 per cent. The Assessing Officer allowed deduction to the extent of two per cent. and added the amount representing excess kachari. On appeal, the Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er also observed that no evidence about the genuineness in regard to this batta khata was produced. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted the addition by observing that batta khata represented short receipt of the trading amounts. The correspondence in this behalf were also furnished. The Revenue is in appeal before us against the findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). While the learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the Assessing Officer, learned counsel supported the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the details of these batta khata was furnished before the Assessing Officer. Copy of accounts of the two partie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
