TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 964X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- cash, advanced to the assessee, routed through bank account is not satisfactorily explained - substantial question of law is answered against the assessee. - ITA No. 456 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 3-12-2010 - Adarsh Kumar Goel, Ajay Kumar Mittal, JJ. Rushtam Kapoor, Adv. for the Appellant Yogesh Putney, Adv. for the Respondent JUDGEMENT Ajay Kumar Mittal, J:- 1. This appeal was admitted by this Court vide order dated 22.1.2007 for determination of the following substantial question of law:- "Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is justified in arriving at the findings on the true and correct interpretation of the provisions of Section 68 which are misconceived?" 2. Briefly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies below. 5. The Tribunal while upholding the aforesaid addition had held as under:- "We have given our careful consideration to the rival contentions. It is well settled principle of law that the onus to establish the genuineness of the credit in the books of accounts is upon the assessee. Mere filing of confirmatory letters or particulars is not enough to discharge the onus. Even filing of the affidavit of the creditor is not sufficient to discharge the onus. This principle of law is established by the ratio of following decisions:- i) Sree Lekha Banerjee and others vs. CIT 49 ITR 112(SC). ii) CIT vs. Nivedan Vanijay Niyojan Ltd. 263 ITR 623 (Cal). iii) Shankar Industries vs. CIT 114 ITR 689 (Cal). iv) CIT vs. Rub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppreciation of the evidence on record had arrived at the conclusion that the cash credit of Rs.40,000/- in the name of Smt. Sarla Devi was unexplained income of the assessee under Section 68 of the Act as the explanation furnished by the assessee was not satisfactory. Learned counsel for the appellant made valiant efforts to demonstrate that the finding recorded was perverse but only effort was to reappreciate the evidence and conclude otherwise. This does not fall within the domain of Section 260A of the Act. The Tribunal has taken a plausible view on appreciation of material on record. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered against the assessee and finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. - - Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
