9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (9) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The ld. ITO recorded the statement of the depositor. In his opinion, from this statement, it is not proved that the depositor had the capacity to advance the loan. Consequently, the ld. ITO held that the sum of Rs. 6000 is the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. 3. The ld. ITO noticed another cash credit of Rs. 4000 in the name of Shri Shaman das. In support of this cash credit, affidavit of Shri Shaman das was filed before the ld. ITO. The ld. ITO after appreciating the affidavit was of the view that the depositor failed to prove the genuineness of the claim. So, the said deposit was also added to the total income of the assessee. 4. The assessee took up the matter in appeal, and contended that the finding of the ld. ITO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as able to discharge the initial onus which lay upon it. After disbelieving the statement of the depositor, on behalf of the revenue, no other material was brought on record to show that the deposit was not genuine. Thus, the deposit is genuine and the ld. AAC was wrong in sustaining the addition. The addition is accordingly deleted. 8. The other contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee was that the deposit in the name of Shri Shamandas is also genuine. In support of this deposit, the affidavit of the depositor was filed. In the said affidavit, the depositor had clearly stated that he did deposit the money with the assessee. The source of the deposit was also disclosed. The ld. ITO in the absence of any other evidence on record, was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITO was of the view that the said deposits were not genuine, and consequently, he held that those sums were the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. 12. The ld. AAC agreed with the finding of the ld. ITO. 13. Before the Tribunal, the first contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee was that the ld. AAC was wrong in holding that the sum of Rs. 3000 deposited in the name of 'Shri Shyamdas was not genuine. It was also contended that in the immediately preceding year, there was deposit in the name of this party and the same was accepted as genuine. It was also contended that Shri Shyamdas had sold his property on 17th Sept., 1973 and got a sum of Rs. 1,500 as advance from the purchaser. This depositor had the capacity to adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ., 1970, there was opening balance of this depositor. There were transactions with the depositor in the asst. yrs. 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80, and at the close of the asst. yr. 1979-80, there was closing balance of Rs. 3000 in the name of this party. It was also contended that this party was paid interest regularly and it was duly recorded in the books of the assessee. Under the circumstances, the assessee had produced sufficient evidence to show that this depositor had the capacity to advance the loan in question. 17. The ld. Deptl. Representative supported the order of the AAC. 18. From the facts stated above, it is clear that this depositor was having regular transactions wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dering the entire evidence on record, was of the view that the depositor was in a position to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,500 only. So, he held that the sum of Rs.7,500 was the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. 23. The ld. ITO also noticed a cash credit of Rs.4,000 in the name of Smt. Savitri Balchandani. He was of the view that there was no convincing evidence on record to prove the genuineness of the loan. So, he added the said amount to the total income of the assessee. 24. The assessee took up the matter in appeal. The ld. AAC in the case of Smt. Asha Kapoor held that the depositor could not explain the deposit to the extent of Rs.3,500. Consequently, he sustained the addition at Rs. 3500 against the addition of Rs. 7,500 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us, the ld. AAC was not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 3,500. We delete the same. 28. The other contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee was that the ld. AAC was wrong in sustaining the addition of Rs. 4,000 The assessee submitted a discharged pro-note before the ITO. It was also showed that the payment was made to the depositor by the party by a crossed cheque. There is no material(1) on record to show that these documents were not genuine. The assessee could not produce the depositor because, at the relevant, time she was not available. 29. The ld. Deptl. Representative supported the order of the AAC. 30. It is correct that the depositor could not be produced before the ITO at the relevant time, but the evidence o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
