2015 (5) TMI 588

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt was in the joint names of the assessee/appellant and his wife. There is no explanation as to why that amount was deposited in the joint account of Lakhbir Singh. This assumes even greater significance in view of the fact that there is no business relationship even claimed between Lakhbir Singh and appellant/assessee. The appellant claims to have added his name only to accommodate Lakhbir Singh because he did not have PAN card number. Even according to the appellant, Lakhbir Singh was entitled to operate the account. There is no explanation as to why Lakhbir Singh would have been entitled/permitted to operate the account although the amount of ₹ 10 lacs withdrawn from HDFC Bank and alleged to have been deposited with Axis Bank belon .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on'ble Court in the cases of Shiv Charan Dass vs. CIT(1980) 126 ITR 263 (P H) and CIT v Prem Chand Jain (1991) 189 ITR 320 (P H) laying down that sans any evidence of amount utilised elsewhere, department could not reject a good explanation into no explanation? (iii)Whether the ITAT was justified in ignoring its own earlier decision on identical issue without distinguishing the same on facts? (iv)Whether the impugned order of the ITAT is legally sustainable when it is perverse on facts? 3. We find that there is no question of law much less a substantial question of law that arises in this case. It is purely a matter of appreciation of facts. We are concerned here only with the addition of the sum of ₹ 8.75 lacs. The appea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . 5. This is a pure question of fact. It was a question of appreciation of evidence to be decided on a balance of probabilities. We are unable to hold that findings of the Tribunal are perverse or absurd. It is important to note that the HDFC Bank account was in the joint names of the assessee/appellant and his wife. There is no explanation as to why that amount was deposited in the joint account of Lakhbir Singh. This assumes even greater significance in view of the fact that there is no business relationship even claimed between Lakhbir Singh and appellant/assessee. The appellant claims to have added his name only to accommodate Lakhbir Singh because he did not have PAN card number. Even according to the appellant, Lakhbir Singh was en .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X