9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of unexplained credits in the assessee's current account. 2. Legitimacy of credits in the names of various creditors under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legitimacy of Unexplained Credits in the Assessee's Current Account: The primary issue revolves around the unexplained credits totaling Rs. 5,00,000 in the assessee's current account with Manacaud Enterprises for the assessment year 1987-88. The assessee argued that these credits originated from a cash balance of Rs. 5,17,600 shown in his wealth-tax statement as of 31-3-1986, which was part of an assessed income of Rs. 10,00,000 for the previous assessment year. The Revenue, however, contended that the assessee had advanced Rs. 10,00,000 to T.P. George, supported by statements from various individuals and documents recovered during a search. The Tribunal found that the cheque for Rs. 10,00,000 issued by Krishnan Nair was never encashed and that the receipt described as a pronote was not acted upon. It was also noted that the actual amount recorded in Geo Motors' accounts was only Rs. 5,00,000. The Tribunal concluded that the sum of Rs. 5,00,000 was indeed part of the circulating capital of the assessee's money-lending business and could be reasonably inferred to have been available for introduction in the current account. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 5,00,000 was deleted. 2. Legitimacy of Credits in the Names of Various Creditors Under Section 68: The Tribunal examined the credits in the names of several creditors, considering the identity, capacity, and genuineness of the transactions: - Sri R. Jayaraman (Rs. 50,000): The Tribunal sustained an addition of Rs. 20,000, as Jayaraman could satisfactorily explain the source of only Rs. 30,000 out of the total Rs. 50,000 advanced. - Efficient Advertisers (M. Ramamoorthy) (Rs. 1,94,000): The Tribunal found that Ramamoorthy had sufficient financial resources from the sale of ancestral property and business dealings, and there was no evidence of the amount being ploughed back to the assessee. The addition of Rs. 1,94,000 was deleted. - Hotel Savoy (Sri N. Sadanandan) (Rs. 35,000): The Tribunal deleted the addition, noting that the source of the funds was adequately explained and there was no evidence linking the withdrawal of a similar amount to the assessee. - Sri N. Sasidharan (Rs. 1,20,000): The Tribunal found no material evidence connecting the deposit in Sasidharan's account to the assessee and dismissed the statement of the creditor that the deposits were made without his knowledge. The addition was deleted. - Mathew Thomas (Rs. 25,000): The Tribunal sustained the addition, as Thomas did not have sufficient financial resources to make the advance, and his explanation was not credible. - Y. Dawood (Kalpana Theatres) (Rs. 25,000): The Tribunal upheld the addition due to a lack of information before the authorities. - Mrs. Uma Thanu Pillai (Rs. 75,100): The Tribunal deleted the addition, accepting the explanation that the funds came from the sale of property and were kept in cash due to family disputes. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, deleting several additions while sustaining others based on the evidence and explanations provided. The judgment underscores the importance of providing credible evidence to support the legitimacy of credits and the necessity of thorough examination by the authorities.
|
