TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddition of Rs. 38,518 being the credits in the account of Shri Dalip Singh as the income of the assessee? (2) Whether, in view of the statement of Shri Dalip Singh duly confirming the credits in the books of the assessee could it be held that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right and justified in law in sustaining the addition of Rs. 38,513 to be the income of the assessee when the creditworthiness of the creditor in question had not been disputed to be unsound? (3) Whether, on the true and correct interpretation of the provisions of section 68 of the Income-tax Act, was the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal correct in law in sustaining the aforesaid amount as the income of the assessee for the instant assessment year? (4) Whether, the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is not vitiated as it proceeded to sustain the addition based upon certain statements which were admittedly recorded behind the back of the assessee and had not been confronted to her on the mere assumption that the assessee had made no efforts to challenge the enquiries made from the village which was not confronted? (5) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee Confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal not only dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, but also the reference filed by it section 256(1) of the Act. 3. Shri Akshay Bhan, learned counsel for the assessee, argued that the Assessing Officer gravely erred in making the additions of the sums deposited by Shri Dalip Singh, Smt. Kamlesh and Smt. Krishna ignoring the fact that there was no dispute about their identity and the source of their income namely, agriculture. He argued that the pattern of deposits and the withdrawals made within the short period could not lead to an inference that deposits were not genuine. In support of his arguments, learned counsel relied on Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SC); CIT v. Ram Prasad Ram Bhagat [1987] 163 ITR 202 (Patna) ; Pushkar Narain Sarraf CIT [1990] 183 ITR 388 (All) ; CIT v. Kakkar Complex Steels Pvt. Ltd . [1996] 222 ITR 184 (P H) and CIT v. Bedi and Co. P. Ltd . [1998] 230 ITR 580 (SC) and submitted that the Tribunal may be directed to refer above reproduced questions for the opinion of this court. 4. Shri Rajesh Bindal, learned counsel for the Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ight of the fact that the contents of the affidavit where the copy of account was given, were not read over to Shri Dalip Singh as admitted by him. Shri Dalip Singh is not aware of the amount outstanding at the end of the year. Initially , he denied having put any thumb impression on any affidavit and it is only at the suggestion of counsel that he admitted having done so. For acceptance of a cash credit it is not only enough that the creditworthiness of the party should be shown but also that, he had sufficient finds to advance on the date when the amount was given to the assessee . No evidence in this respect is on record. Taking an overall view of the facts we are of the considered view that the credit is not genuine and hence cannot be accepted. We would however accept the assessee's alternative plea that at best the peak of the amount should be added. We would, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to allow relief on account of the peak of the credits for which the addition has been made in this case…. The next additions pertain to Rs. 49,316 and Rs. 48,709 made on account of deposits of Smt. Kamlesh w/o. Shri Makhan Lal, a partner, and Smt. Krishna w/o. Shri Ami L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er annum. Thus, between two of them, they earned Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 30,000 per annum. This is also from stitching, sewing and knitting in the village where scope is limited. If for the sake of argument the statement is to be accepted then as rightly pointed out by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the capital as shown on March 31, 1987 , of Smt. Kamlesh is much below the amount which should have been there. A per her own statement, she has been earning the income right from the year 1976 when she was married that in her return filed by Smt. Kamlesh. The amounts shown were in the form of gifts and cash from relatives friends, etc. The income derived from knitting and tailoring declares for the assessment year 1987-88 was only Rs. 10,000. Further more. The return had been filed under the amnesty scheme and that too on the date March 31, 1987 . As per the statement, the amounts were first given to the ladies of village on interest and after receiving the same from them (names of few of them mentioned by her) it was deposited in the bank and then advanced to the firm. For this there is no evidence brought on record . A copy of the bank account on the other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
