9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Assessment of cash credits in books of account, applicability of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, burden of proof on the assessee, refusal of reference application under section 256(1), jurisdiction of the court in hearing reference matters.
Assessment of cash credits: The Income Tax Officer (ITO) noticed cash credits in the assessee's books of account totaling Rs. 77,500, inquired about their nature and source, and found them unverifiable. The ITO held this amount as the assessee's income from other sources and disallowed claimed interest on the deposits. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the ITO's order, leading to further appeal to the High Court. Applicability of section 68: The Tribunal rejected the contention that section 68 did not apply to commercial loans, upholding the ITO's decision. The High Court, considering the language of section 68 and legal precedents, held that the onus lies on the assessee to prove the genuineness of cash credits, including the identity and capacity of creditors. The court emphasized the need for the assessee to establish the legitimacy of transactions, as reiterated in previous judgments. Burden of proof on the assessee: The High Court affirmed that in cases of cash credit entries, the assessee must prove the identity and capacity of creditors, as well as the genuineness of transactions. Referring to legal principles and previous court decisions, the court emphasized that the onus of proof rests on the assessee, and in this case, the Tribunal had sufficient evidence to support its conclusion. Refusal of reference application: The Tribunal initially refused to refer questions proposed by the assessee under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act. Subsequently, the High Court directed the Tribunal to make a reference on specific questions related to the evidence regarding the cash credits and the obligation of the assessee to prove the creditworthiness of lenders. Jurisdiction of the court: The High Court addressed the objection raised regarding jurisdiction, stating that the Bench hearing the reference application is competent to dispose of the reference. The court clarified that the reference matter is not part-heard before the Bench hearing the application, emphasizing the established practice of the court in such cases. Conclusion: The High Court answered the questions in favor of the revenue, holding that the onus of proof regarding cash credits lay on the assessee, and the Tribunal had sufficient evidence to support its decision. The court ordered the assessee to pay the costs of the reference and denied the request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Judge Sudhindra Mohan Guha concurred with the judgment.
|
