9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Appeal against addition of cash credits in assessment for asst. yr. 1974-75.
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur involved an appeal by a Registered Firm against the addition of cash credits in their assessment for the assessment year 1974-75. The learned ITO had noticed cash credits in the accounts of four individuals, namely Smt. Leela, Smt. Ishwaribai, Smt. Rukmanibai, and Shri Kishanchand, totaling Rs. 24,100, which he deemed as not genuine. The learned AAC upheld this finding. The Tribunal considered each cash credit separately. Regarding the cash credit of Rs. 6,000 in the name of Smt. Leela Devi, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had requested to produce her, but the notices issued under section 131 of the Act were returned unserved. The Tribunal opined that the ITO should have asked for the correct address of the depositor after the notices were unserved. The Tribunal granted the assessee another opportunity to produce Smt. Leela Devi and directed the matter to be sent back to the ITO for fresh consideration upon her production and statement. For the cash credit of Rs. 5,000 in the name of Smt. Ishwaribai, a similar situation arose where the lady was not produced despite being required by the ITO. The Tribunal ordered the assessee to produce Smt. Ishwaribai before the ITO for recording her statement and further evaluation in accordance with the law. Regarding the cash credit of Rs. 8,100 in the name of Smt. Rukmanibai, the Tribunal found discrepancies in the evidence provided by the assessee. The Tribunal disagreed with the contention that the evidence discharged the burden under section 68 of the Act, deeming the affidavit filed by the lady as vague. The Tribunal directed the assessee to produce Smt. Rukmanibai before the ITO for a fresh decision based on her statement and other evidence. Lastly, for the cash credit of Rs. 5,000 in the name of Shri Kishanchand, the Tribunal found the loan to be genuine based on the statement of the creditor and the production of a discharge pronote. The Tribunal held that once the execution of a pronote is proven, the transaction is presumed genuine unless proven otherwise. As the Revenue failed to provide evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 5,000. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part, and the judgment favored the assessee in this regard.
|
