9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (7) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods. The assessing officer noticed that cash credit appeared in the name of M/s. Dinesh Textiles. The amount comprised of a sum of Rs. 60,000 received by draft and a sum of Rs. 25,000 received by cheque on Allahabad Bank. Before the assessing officer one Shri Puran Chand who happens to be the husband of female partner, appeared from time to time. He explained to the assessing officer that the amount was raised from Shri Brijesh Nath Agarwal, proprietor of M/s. Dinesh Textiles and the interest that was agreed to be paid was 1 per cent per month. The assessing officer examined Shri Brijesh Nath Aggarwal who was asked to appear with relevant books of account, vouchers etc. but the lender appeared before the assessing officer only with one e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p and the agreed terms, the assessing officer concluded that the cash credit was not satisfactorily explained and therefore made addition under section 68 of the Act. It may be stated here that Shri Brijesh Nath Aggarwal was not assessed to tax and had completed his B.Com only in 1983. 3. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the addition. He found certain interesting features of the transactions. He found that when the new account was opened in the name of M/s. Dinesh Textiles, Proprietor Shri Brijesh Nath Aggarwal, the introduction was by Shri Dinesh Chand Bansal and the funds from the old account were transferred to new account. Moreover operation of this bank throughout by Shri Dinesh Chand Bansal was another interesting fea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntion at the outset that as per the procedure in Tribunal the assessee is required to give a certificate on the Paper Book certifying what evidence was placed on record before the Income-tax authorities below and what other evidence was sought to be produced before the Tribunal for the first time. On behalf of the assessee Shri Dinesh Chand Bansal, the male partner has given the certificate as under :---- " Certificate : Under instructions from the assessee, it is to certify that documents from pages 1 to 26 and 28 to 37 are on the record of Assessing Officer and CIT (A). No fresh document is being filed. Dated :24-5-1989For Saree Centre Sd/-- Partner." On page 26, we find the assessment order dated29-7-1986in the case of Brijes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will be separately initiated on the basis of the powers of the Tribunal envisaged in sub-section (6) of section 255 of the Act. 4.1 Again similar discrepancy is found in relation to evidence on P. 37 of Paper Book, being xerox copy of certificate of registration issued by Chief Inspector under Shop and Establishment Act. The certificate was issued on21-4-1986and application for registration was made on16-4-1986. The date of Asst. Order is3-1-1986. Obviously it could not be before A.O. Yet it is certified as if it was on record of A.O. The CIT(Appeals) nowhere refers to this evidence if at all was placed before him. These facts also throw ample light on conduct of the assessee and compelling circumstances under which it was acting. 5. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... persons. In the case under consideration the department has brought enough material not only to shift the onus back upon the assessee but with the chain of events and circumstantial evidence with inferential facts pointed out that what is claimed is not real. 6.1 Next decision relied upon by the learned representative of the assessee was in the case of Sarogi Credit Corpn. v. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 344 (Pat.) for the proposition that when the source was established, it was not incumbent upon the assessee to satisfy the revenue on the source of the source. On going through this decision, we find that this decision in fact tilts the scales in favour of the revenue because in this case the credit entry appears in the books in the name of a rela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not assessed to tax and it was an admitted fact. Again on going through the decision, it is found that in that case the department did not summon the creditor and took no steps to verify the statement of the assessee and therefore, the onus which shifted to the department was not discharged by the department. Therefore, this decision also does not help the case of the assessee. 8. On the contrary it would be worthwhile to mention here the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Biju Patnaik [1986] 160 ITR 674 wherein guideline to approach on the point whether it could be said that the assessee discharged his burden, is available. In this case the assessee had raised loans from Kalinga Foundation Trust and deduction was clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
