TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 806X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3-7-2011 - SABHAHIT V. G., RAVI MALIMATH, JJ. JUDGMENT V. G. Sabhahit J.- 1. The appeal filed by the Revenue has been admitted for consideration of the following substantial question of law : "Whether the appellate authorities were right in holding and recording a finding that a sum of Rs. 16 lakhs and Rs. 10,75,000 treated as income of the assessee under section 68 of the Income-tax Act by the Assessing Officer on the basis of admission made by the assessee and the denial issued by Sri Thimmegowda and Sri D. S. Kumar, the persons who had advanced these amounts was not taken into account and consequently a perverse finding came to be recorded ?" 2. The material facts leading up to this appeal for considering the above- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the Assessing Officer and denied the transaction, the assessee has miserably failed to prove the said trans- action. The Tribunal rejected the contention of the Revenue and confirmed the order passed by the appellate authority and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed by the Revenue and the appeal has been admitted for consideration of the abovesaid substantial question of law. 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has taken us through the order passed by the Assessing Officer, the appellate authority and the Tribunal and submitted that when Thimmegowda and D. S. K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kumar were produced, the said persons had appeared before the Assessing Officer and have stated that they did not have any such financial trans- action. Wherefore, it is clear that when the persons in whose name credit is shown they themselves denied the transaction, mere production of the demand drafts, would not in any way substantiate the case of the respondent-assessee that sufficient explanation is offered and the finding of the appellate authority and the Tribunal for deleting the undisclosed credit added by the Assessing Officer, is clearly perverse and arbitrary as they have proceeded only on the basis that the demand drafts were produced. that the assessee has discharged his onus and, therefore, the credit has been satisfactorily ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
