9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (2) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on a total income of Rs. 51,123 including income from undisclosed sources being unexplained cash credit of Rs. 50,000. This assessment was set aside by the Tribunal vide order dt. 13th Dec, 1989, in ITA No. 318/Jp/87 with the direction to allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard before completion of the assessment. 4. In compliance of this, the AO has given a specific opportunity to the assessee vide letter dt. 7th Aug., 1990, to produce the creditor M/s Megh Raj Duli Chand, Calcutta, as Shri S.L. Jain, proprietor of M/s Megh Raj Duli Chand, Calcutta, in his letter dt. 24th June, 1981, addressed to the ITO, J-Ward, District IV(3), Calcutta, has denied in response to summons under s. 131, to advance any loan of Rs. 50,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred case law cited at 232 ITR 82 (Cal) (sic). 9. We have heard rival submissions of both the parties and we find that in this case both parties were unknown to each other. As per statement of Shri Chandra Singh, a broker of Jaharat, it is noticed that Shri Ram Lal, representative of M/s Megh Raj Duli Chand has brought some amount in cash and wanted to deposit with some party at Jaipur. He (broker) took him to Shri Devendra Kumar, partner of the assessee-firm to whom the amount was given on interest. 10. It is surprising to note that a loan of Rs. 50,000 which was not a small amount in those days was given to the unknown party even without any documentary evidence/written agreement. 11. We have also noted that in this case a letter da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. vs. CIT (1981) 20 CTR (Cal) 264 : (1981) 131 ITR 688 (Cal). Mere filing of confirmatory letters does not discharge the onus that lies on the assessee [Bharati (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 1975 CTR (Cal) 40 : (1978) 111 ITR 951 (Cal) and CIT vs. W.J Walker Co. (1979) 117 ITR 690 (Cal)]. 13. We also feel that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity to produce better evidence in support of his claim but he failed to do so. The law of evidence mandates that if the best evidence is not placed before the Court, adverse inference can be drawn against the person who ought to produce it. 14. It is also noticed that the case law relied upon by the AO in the case of CIT vs. C.P. Adam 1976 CTR (Ker) 76 : (1976) 105 ITR 465 (Ker) is most identical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neness of cash credit is upon the assessee does not mean that he is bound to win over false witnesses, if he can show that they have resiled but he can certainly produce other collateral evidence to show the circumstances under which they have resiled. In such circumstances it is the imperative duty of the taxing authority to find out the truth for himself and not to reject the assessee's version because unfortunately the creditors do not support him. Accordingly we accept these appeals and restore the matter back to the file of the AAC for fresh decision on merits in the light of our aforesaid observations." 17. Whereas in the case before us the assessee in spite of sufficient opportunity provided by the AO, did not produce any other evi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
