TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 1109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion of law is in favour of the assessee and against the Department. - INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 68 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 5-9-2014 - Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala and Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra, JJ. For the Appellant :- Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal,R.P. Agrawal,Suyash Agrawal For the Respondent :- B.J. Agrawal,Ashok Kumar,D Awasthi,G Krishna,Rk Upadhyay,S Chopra JUDGEMENT 1. The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 31.3.2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad in I.T.A. No.859(Alld.)/1999 for the Assessment Year 1993-94. 2. On 6.7.2009, a coordinate Bench has admitted this appeal on the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether on the facts and circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.1,13,000/- (ii). Shyam Shanker Mishra, Rs.15,000/- (iii). Keshav Prasad Dubey, Rs.20,000/- (iv). Prabhu Nath Tiwari, Rs.10,000/- (v). Ram Chandra Sharma, Rs.12,000/- Rs1,70,000/- 4.On 29.2.1996, the statement of Anand Mohan Shukla was recorded by the A.O.. In his statement Anand Mohan Shukla submitted that he is a teacher and his income is from the salary and tuition. Sri Anand Mohan Shukla also submitted that as per the details, he has taken a loan of ₹ 1,09,500/- from the five persons. But the A.O. was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On the other hand, Sri R. K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for Department has justified the impugned order. He submitted that the creditworthiness of the creditors has not been proved, so he made a request that the appeal may kindly be dismissed. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record. 8. In the instant case, the main dispute is pertaining to the loan given by Anand Mohan Shukla to the assessee for a sum of ₹ 1,13,000/-. Anand Mohan Shukla has taken loan from five persons as stated in his statement, but the A.O. has never issued summons to the said five persons. The source of source need not to be proved as per the ratio laid down in the following cases:- (i). S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
