9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dated:- 10-7-2012 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.AND MR. G.S. SANDHAWALIA.JJ. PRESENT: Mr. Ravi Shankar, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) against the order dated 30.9.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench B , Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) in ITA No. 864/CHD/2009 for the assessment year 2006-07, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- A. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was justified in giving two contradictory findings in respect of two creditors having same set of facts whereas credit in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther the loan from Shri Charan Singh was genuine or not. The appellant had shown that he had received a sum of Rs.35,90,000/- from his father Shri Charan Singh. The Tribunal while adjudicating the said issue observed that the perusal of the bank account of Shri Charan Singh depicted a uniform pattern of deposits of Rs. 5 lacs and immediate withdrawal thereafter which had not been explained. The copy of the bank account was incomplete. The nature and source of the loan amount of Rs. 35,90,000/- had also not been explained. The creditor, Shri Charan Singh was not produced. Further, no evidence of agricultural operation being done by Shri Charan Singh had been brought on record. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence, thus, had come to the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven complete bank account of Shri Charan Singh has not been filed by the assessee. The assessee also failed to produce the creditors on one pretext or the other. No proper evidence filed in respect of crop grown and sold by Shri Charan Singh, as observed by the AO. It is a legally settled proposition that identity of the creditor, capacity of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction is required to be proved by the assessee and the onus of proving such ingredients squarely lies on the assessee. In the present case, the assessee has failed to adduce requisite evidence to prove the capacity of Shri Charan Singh, by way of cogent and corroborative evidence and genuineness of the transaction has not been established. In view of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e would necessarily not mean that the loan in the present case was also genuine. No benefit can be derived by the assessee in respect of the findings recorded in that case as the same depends on the facts and circumstances of each case independently. In the present case, the Tribunal on appreciation of material has come to the conclusion that the loan of Rs. 35,90,000/- as shown by the assessee to have been received from Shri Charan Singh was not genuine. Moreover, on 1.5.2012, learned counsel for the appellant had sought time to produce material on record to show that there were sufficient funds available with Shri Charan Singh to advance the loan to the appellant. However, nothing has been produced in this regard. 6. In view of the abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
