Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1975 (4) TMI 12

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aside the assessment for being made after re-examination ? " The assessee is a partnership firm deriving income from commission agency and wholesale business in groceries. While examining its books of account for the assessment year 1964-65 (corresponding to the previous year ending on April 19, 1964) the Income-tax Officer came across cash credits to the tune of Rs. 1,20,000 as per the following particulars: Rs. 1. Sri Surekha Jute Co., Calcutta 25,000 2. Sri Budhkaran Surekha, Calcutta 10,000 3. Sri Budharmal Saraf, Calcutta 25,000 4. Sri Murarilal Gupta, Calcutta 20,000 5. Sri Om Prakash Kedia, Calcutta 15,000 6. M/s Daluram Goganmal, Calcutta 25,000 ----------------- 1,20,000 ------------------- The assessee was ca .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ition and arrive at a proper finding instead of proceeding on surmises and suspicions. In his order the Appellate Assistant Commissioner stated: "......I have very closely examined the documents adduced before me I have no hesitation in observing that there was some force in the contention of the learned advocate. But the materials placed before me raised certain other issues directly concerning such transactions, i.e., availability of funds with the creditors, viz., Daluram Goganmal and Surekha Jute Co. for the issue of demand draft as the statements made by Sri Bidyananda Surekha, proprietor of Surekha Jute Co. and partner of Daluram Goganmal, that some of the loans advanced to the parties by them were genuine and some were bogus ones .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oper streamlining of the evidence we further hold that the primary onus cast upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of the cash credits stood discharged when income-tax file numbers, confirmation letters and the statements of the creditors were recorded by the Income-tax Officer. The assessee cannot be called upon to prove the source of the money of the creditors and the availability of the amounts with them before lending the same to the assessee. All the creditors, in unequivocal terms, have affixed the seal of approval to the transactions with the assessee and it mattered little whether the books of account of one of the creditors were seized by the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, and any confession had been made there. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ment of interest is also allowed." Before the Appellate Tribunal its jurisdiction to examine all the materials on record and to dispose of the appeal was not disputed. The Tribunal clearly indicated that even if the fresh evidence produced before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was kept out, the rest of the evidence was sufficient to come to a finding that the impugned transactions represented genuine cash credits and were not concealed income of the assessee introduced into its books in the garb of cash credits. The Appellate Tribunal appropriately focussed its attention on the transaction of Surekha Jute Company and M/s. Daluram Goganmal in view of what the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had said in respect of the remaining four .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... m of Rs. 1,20,000 in the assessee's books of account represents cash credits or his profits in the garb of cash credits depends upon the appreciation of the evidence on the materials on record. The finding reached by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee is one of fact. In Amarchand Sobhachand v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1971] 82 ITR 591 (SC), where the question for determination was whether certain remittance of money I was in the course of money-lending business or was merely by way of accommodation wholly unrelated to the business of the money-lender, the Supreme Court came to hold that the conclusion was one of fact. Similarly, in Sobhachand Baid v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1958] 34 ITR 650 (SC), dealing with the question whether .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates