9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (4) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of s. 69 of the IT Act and the interpretation of the same. The assessee is an individual. For his failure to file the return of income, notice under s. 148 was issued and on the basis of which the assessee filed Income-tax return showing a loss of Rs. 8,980. There was a search in the case of the assessee on 16th Sept., 1986. In the seized material it was found by the AO that the assessee had deposited a sum of Rs. 70,000 in New Bank of India, Sowcarpet Branch, and two amounts of Rs. 25,000 each were advanced to one Mr. Karimbi on 31st July, 1984. When asked to explain the sources for these investment, the assessee filed confirmation letters from 12 persons having received an amount of Rs. 1,12,000 in aggregate. Copies of these confirma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent to the CIT(A), who deleted an addition of Rs. 10,000 in respect of the money advanced by one M. Vijayaraghavan to the assessee in respect of which the assessee recorded a statement on oath on 30th Jan., 1989. Thus, an addition of Rs. 1,10,000 was sustained by the CIT(A) under s. 69 relying on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of C. Kant Co. vs. CIT (1980) 18 CTR (Cal) 164 : (1980) 126 ITR 63 (Cal). Against the said addition the assessee has come up in appeal before us. The addition of Rs. 1,10,000 consisted of two items of Rs. 8,000 and Rs. 1,02,000. In respect of Rs. 8,000 the assessee s authorised representative was not able to show any source for the investment either before us or before the lower authorities. Thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain, Vijayanagar, Bangalore-40 Nil 20,000 2-5-1984 7. K. Sham, 28, Anjaneya Temple Road, Cubbonpet, Bangalore-2 Nil 15,000 2-5-1984 8. Smt. N. Geetha, 25, Muniappa Street Kondithope Market, Madras-79 Nil 7,000 2-5-1984 9. Naraindas Punjabi 25, Muniappa Mudali, Street, Kondithope Market, Madras-79 Nil 5,000 1-5-1984 10. Mrs. Lakshmi Bai, 42, Venkateswara Nilaya II Floor, PRS Lane, Nagarathpet Cross, Bangalore-2 Nil 8,000 2-5-1984 11. J.V. Sadasivam, 119A, Kallukudalur Road, Vridhachalam South Arcot Nil 10,000 2-5-1984 12. Mrs. Rena Vijayan, 3, Parasa Pillai, Street, Kilapuk, Mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision of the Patna High Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Hanuman Agarwal (1984) 42 CTR (Pat) 15 : (1985) 151 ITR 150 (Pat), specifically on p. 157 of the report, in which it was held: "Where, therefore, an assessee gives the correct name, address and the GIR number of the creditor, as my learned brother has observed, he has discharged his onus and unless a notice in due form under s. 131 of the Act is issued by the Revenue authority concerned to test the veracity or the genuineness of the transaction or the capacity of the creditor to pay, the assessee has to succeed". He also placed reliance on the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Jhaverbhai Bihari Lal Co. vs. CIT (1984) 41 CTR (Pat) 125 : (1985) 154 ITR 591 (Pat), in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt is on the assessee. He stated that the Calcutta High Court decision was applicable to the facts of the case because here the addition is in respect of unexplained investment and for which the assessee has given the source to be the cash credits. The confirmation letters do not have any date and any GIR number was also not given. In this regard he relied on the following decisions: (1) CIT vs. M. Ganapathi Mudaliar (1964) 53 ITR 623 (SC); (2) CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1969) 72 ITR 807 (SC); (3) A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC); (4) CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194 (SC); (5) V. Datchinamurthy Anr. vs. Asstt. Director of Inspection (Intelligence), IT Dept. Anr. (1982) 26 CTR (Mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the assessee could only give the names of the parties from whom the loan was taken in respect of the unexplained investment. Confirmation letters were filed only in respect of seven of the parties. For the rest of the parties from whom a sum of Rs. 37,000 was received, no confirmation was filed except names and addresses of these parties. The AO has given opportunity to produce the parties for his examination, but the assessee pleaded his inability, as some of the parties were at Bangalore. Even he has not discharged his burden by producing the parties who were at Madras. From the confirmations, we find that none of the parties is an income-tax assessee and for the source of investment they have a common wording, which reads: "The abovesa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
