9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remanded the case with regard to four depositors whereas other depositors were held not to be genuine on the ground that the amount was stated to have been paid to the assessee by them out of saving from household expenses etc. without producing any evidence - Hence, the proposition of law laid down therein is well recognized, but in view of the findings, the judgments do not come to the rescue of the appellant - Thus, are answered against the assessee and finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. - 61 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 30-11-2010 - MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JJ. Mr. Ravish Sood, Advocate for the appellant-assessee. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This appeal under Section 260A o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee in respect of the parties whose deposits were found to be of Rs. 9,000/- or above. The assessee supplied complete particulars of the depositors. But still, the assessing officer on further investigation into the matter at his own level, treated the above amount in respect of all the 35 deposits as unexplained cash credits and assessed the income of the assessee company at Rs. 3,45,120/- vide order dated 24.12.1998. Before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) {in short the CIT(A) }, the assessee produced further evidence in the shape of affidavits of 15 depositors in order to wriggle out of the additions made by the assessing officer in that context. The CIT(A), however, was of the view that since it was a fresh eviden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... py of the report of the A.O. was made available to the appellant and the case was fixed for hearing on 8.2.2000. It was admitted by Sh. K.K. Sareen and Sh. Dheeraj Sehgal, Director that no evidence were produced before the A.O. in suppot of the credits. A written submission dated 8.2.2000 was also filed along with copies of certain documents. As none of these documents was produced before the A.O. neither during the assessment proceedings or during the remand proceedings, no cognizance is being taken in respect of these documents and this was brought to the notice of Ld. counsel during the appellate proceedings on 8.2.2000. 3.6 In the light of above discussion, it is clear that the assessee company had shown deposits in 35 names but req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal was in error and had recorded findings which are based on surmises and conjectures without there being any sufficient material on record. Learned counsel further submitted that the affidavits had been filed by the depositors to prove their identity and, in such a situation, it was not proper for the Tribunal to have sustained the additions. It was next argued that the Tribunal had referred back the matter in respect of four depositors, namely, C.L. Duggal, Mrs. Nirdosh Sareen, Pinki Dada and Satinder and the Tribunal ought to have remanded the case with regard to other depositors also. Once the affidavits had been furnished by the assessee, there could not have been any doubt about ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed only if the assessee expresses its inability for producing the creditors or requests the AO to do so. Otherwise the onus is on the assessee to produce such creditors before the A.O. as held by the Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vir Bhan and sons (supra). The A.O. submitted the remand report vide letter dated 24/27.12.1999 where he had clearly mentioned that the assessee was given full opportunity to furnish whatever evidence was with him to prove the sources of cash credits. Neither the assessee produced the creditors nor filed any written submissions and, therefore, there was no evidence available with the assessee to prove the same. This was also confronted to the assessee vide CIT(A) s letter dated 2.2.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should be accepted until there is a contrary material brought on record. I am unable to agree with such proposition for the simple reason that there is no universal proposition of law that a statement given in the form of an affidavit should be accepted as true. I have already discussed in detail that in case of cash credits, the onus of proving the source and genuineness is entirely on the assessee and mere filing of confirmations or affidavits without there being any corroborative evidence does not by itself prove the source and genuineness thereof. Moreover, these affidavits were not even filed during the course of assessment proceedings. These were filed only during the course of proceedings before the CIT(A) and there also the asssesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
