9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 771X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 68 of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show any perversity or error of law in the findings recorded by the Tribunal so as to persuade this court to interfere therewith - no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition was allowed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), (for short "CIT(A)") by order dated September 18, 1998, annexure A7, whereby the addition of Rs. 95,000 was deleted. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by order under appeal reversed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in so far as the addition of Rs. 20,000 each, advanced by Shanti Diwan and Renu Diwan ; and Rs. 25,000 by Yogesh Kumar is concerned, and confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in so far as it related to the deletion of Rs. 30,000. In other words, the Tribunal, while observing that the Assessing Officer had rightly rejec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wan and Yogesh Kumar or has given the said amount as loan to them. The money has been advanced to the assessee not by Ram Gopal but by Shanti Diwan, Renu Diwan and Yogesh Kumar. Therefore, the onus lies on the assessee to prove the creditworthiness of these parties. Creditworthiness of Ram Gopal will not discharge the onus which lies on the assessee to prove the creditworthiness of Shanti Diwan, Renu Diwan and Yogesh Kumar. Under the Income-tax Act, each individual is a separate person/entity. Thus, the assessee must prove that all the ingredients of section 68 are complied with. There is nothing on record that the parties were having bank account. The assessee has no doubt filed affidavits confirming advance of money received from these pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Diwan, Rs. 20,000 by Renu Diwan and Rs. 25,000 by Yogesh Kumar) is concerned and confirm his order so far as it relates to deletion of Rs. 30,000 advanced by Yogesh Kumar is concerned. Ground stands partly allowed." The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence had concluded that the cash credits amounting to Rs. 65,000 in the names of Smt. Shanti Diwan ; Smt.Renu Diwan and Yogesh Kumar were not proved to be genuine, whereas Rs. 30,000 which was an income from commission received by Yogesh Kumar and converted into loan account, stood proved and could not be added under section 68 of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show any perversity or error of law in the findings recorded by the Tribunal so as to persuade th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
