9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Explanation of cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Detailed Analysis: The appeal concerned the deletion of an amount of Rs. 85,000 added under section 68 of the Act. The assessee, a registered firm engaged in the sarees and textile business, received cash credits in the name of M/s. Dinesh Textiles. The assessing officer found discrepancies and contradictions in the explanations provided by the parties involved. Shri Brijesh Nath Aggarwal, the lender, failed to produce relevant account books, and Shri Dinesh Chand Bansal, a partner of the assessee firm, denied certain statements made by Aggarwal. The assessing officer concluded that the cash credit was not satisfactorily explained and made the addition under section 68 of the Act. It was noted that Aggarwal was not assessed to tax and had completed his B.Com only in 1983. In the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the addition after considering various factual aspects and finding inconsistencies in the relationships and transactions. It was observed that Shri Dinesh Chand Bansal appeared to be operating the business of M/s. Dinesh Textiles under the guise of benami ownership. The Commissioner concluded that the cash credit represented the firm's own money reintroduced under a fictitious name, thereby upholding the assessing officer's decision. During the proceedings, the assessee submitted documents related to Shri Brijesh Nath Aggarwal's tax assessment. However, discrepancies were found in the submission dates of these documents, raising concerns about their authenticity. The Tribunal highlighted the discrepancies and the misleading nature of the submissions, indicating potential separate proceedings based on the powers vested in section 255(6) of the Act. Regarding the admissibility of additional evidence presented by the assessee, the Tribunal rejected it as no formal request for admission was made. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's reliance on legal precedents, emphasizing the specific circumstances of the case and the substantial evidence provided by the revenue to challenge the authenticity of the transactions. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Commissioner's decision to uphold the addition under section 68 of the Act. The judgment highlighted the importance of establishing the credibility and legitimacy of transactions, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence and consistent explanations in such cases.
|
