9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Assessment of unexplained cash credit entry of Rs. 25,000 in the books of account for the assessment year 1972-73, and the correctness of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's decision in recalling its earlier order regarding the deletion of the cash credit.
Assessment of unexplained cash credit entry: The Income-tax Officer added Rs. 25,000 as an unexplained cash credit in the respondent's hands, despite the respondent's claim of receiving the amount in cash from Delhi Automobiles (Pvt.) Ltd. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this addition, which was later confirmed in an order dated August 25, 1983. However, the Tribunal, upon a miscellaneous application, found a mistake in its earlier order and deleted the addition based on discrepancies in transactions between the two business houses involving G. Sagar Suri. The Tribunal's decision was based on factual findings and not a mistake of law. Recall of Tribunal's order: The Department filed reference applications questioning the Tribunal's decision to entertain the miscellaneous application and the subsequent deletion of the cash credit. The Tribunal dismissed these applications under section 256(1), leading to further applications under section 256(2). The High Court held that the Tribunal's decision to recall its earlier order was based on factual findings and not a mistake of law. The Court noted that the Tribunal's written order was corrected to align with the announcement made in open court, and there was no error in the Tribunal's decision-making process. Merits of the Tribunal's decision: The Department argued that the Tribunal ignored crucial evidence showing discrepancies in the dates of the credit entries between the respondent and Delhi Automobiles (Pvt.) Ltd. However, the High Court held that the Tribunal's assessment of the entries' genuineness was a question of fact. The Tribunal's acceptance of the respondent's version was upheld, as it did not involve any legal principle. The Court found the Tribunal's decision to be based on factual analysis, and even if debatable, it was not deemed unsupported or perverse. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the Department's applications, emphasizing that the Tribunal's decision was based on factual findings and did not involve any legal errors.
|
