9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer rightly did not accept the case of the assessee in regard to those two creditors and the Tribunal without assigning any reason had deleted the said addition. In the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that the assessee had not discharged the onus and the Tribunal erred in directing deletion thereof. - 269 of 2001 - - - Dated:- 24-11-2008 - CHANDRAMAULI KUMAR PRASAD and DR. RAVI RANJAN JJ. Harshwardhan Prasad with Ms. Archana Sinha for the appellants. None appeared for the respondent. JUDGMENT 1. Ram Babu Roy happened to be the proprietor of Shree Ram Enterprises, Khajekalan, Patna City and used to derive income from the business of crackers. A search and seizure operation was conducted in the business a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee preferred the appeal before the Patna Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"). The Tribunal by the impugned order observed that it was not necessary to make further addition on account of the two sundry creditors, namely, M/s. Mohan Fireworks and M/s Santosh Sharma and accordingly ordered for its deletion. 3. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Tribunal in this regard is as follows: "The matter has been discussed on page 4 of the assessment order. It mentions that the figure of sundry creditors as on the date of search was originally shown at Rs. 13.71 lakhs, but the same had gone up to Rs. 27.56 lakhs in view of the undisclosed purchases made by the assessee. Out of these p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In support of this submission, she has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 and our attention has been drawn to the following passage from the said judgment, which reads as follows (page 4): "It seems to us that the answer to this question must be in the affirmative and that is how it was answered by the High Court. It is well established that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by the assessee is on him. If he disputes liability for tax, it is for him to show either that the receipt was not income or that if it was, it was exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Act. In the absence of such proof, the Income-ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
