9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (3) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on record which more than showed that not only the parties were identifiable but they were creditworthy and the genuineness of the transaction was not in doubt. The assessments in the hands of Shri Anil Gupta were finalised for asst. yrs. 1981-82 to 1984-85. These were set aside by the CIT under s. 263 of the Act. After reopening of the assessments the assessee decided to avail of the benefits of the Amnesty Scheme announced during the financial year 1985-86 and revised the returns for all the assessment years. In addition it also filed a return for asst. yr. 1980-81. In his order passed under s. 263 of the Act, the CIT alleged that the gifts received by the assessee are from petty persons like labourers, masons, trailors, etc. who are not related to the assessee and as such could not be accepted. In revising its returns for all the assessment years the assessee relied on assurance given on the Amnesty Scheme whereby no penalties or interest would be charged in the course of assessments as framed. Similar was the position in regard to the declaration which would not be questioned by the IT Department. The assessee filed other evidence showing his creditworthiness. An affidavit was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee.Shri C.S. Aggarwal also relied on the order of the Tribunal in the case of Rishi Electronics Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (1995) 53 ITD 10 (Del), wherein after discussing the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sophia Finance Ltd. (1993) 113 CTR (Del) 472 : (1994) 205 ITR 98 (Del), it was held that though a heavy duty is cast upon the assessee not only to produce shareholders but also evidence of their financial status, bank pass books, etc. It is not fair and reasonable to call upon the company to produce all the mentioned pieces of evidence in case of shareholders. The assessee is required to establish the identity of the party which he did in these cases. The learned Departmental Representative on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the learned CIT(A). 3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have also gone through the facts as made available in the paper-book. We find that in the case of Shri Anil Gupta in addition to the affidavit filed confirming the deposits in his name as reflected in the books of account of company, other material was placed to show that the party had been assessed to tax right from asst. yr. 1980-81. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 in the case of Shri Anil Gupta the assessments were cancelled by the learned CIT(A) vide his order dt.4th March, 1986. In response to the notice issued under s. 148 of the Act, the assessments were reframed taking the income surrendered by Shri Anil Gupta on account of gifts received from various parties. In the order so framed, however, no finding was given by the AO as to whether there was any evidence to prove the existence of moneys during the relevant assessment years as directed by the CIT in his order passed under s. 263 of the Act. Proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated for all these assessment years. Statement of affairs filed on31st March, 1981reveal that the cash in hand was shown at Rs. 2,07,644. This was accepted by the WTO and for other years too. The amount surrendered by the party was brought to tax in the concerned assessment years. As to what happened in regard to the penalties imposed under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, no material is placed before us by the learned Authorised Representative or for that matter by the learned Departmental Representative. Similar was the case in regard to Ajay Gupta where proceedings under s. 148 of the Act were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er filed and source of investment explained, the learned Authorised Representative relied on the statements of both the parties whereby in certain terms the transactions were admitted. According to the learned Authorised Representative, as all the prerequisite conditions for proving the genuineness of the cash credit were satisfied, the addition was not warranted. It was argued that the assessee was not required to prove the source of source and as such the addition was unwarranted. The learned Departmental Representative on the other hand, relied on the order of the learned CIT(A). 6. We have considered the submissions made on both sides. We have also gone through the material to which our specific attention was drawn. We find that in support of his investment made in the company Shri Hanuman filed an affidavit whereby he stated that annual produce of his land is approximately Rs. 80,000. As per the contents of the affidavits a sum of Rs. 78,000 was advanced. Out of (sic them) Rs. 48,000 was advanced after withdrawing the same from Savings Bank Account No. 3901 with SBI, Mandi Dabhauli and the balance came from his son Shri Krishan Kumar. In his affidavit Shri Krishan Kumar subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
