9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Shiv Rice General Mills v. CIT[ 2006 (10) TMI 97 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] , we observed:- held that findings recorded on cash credits are findings of facts giving rise to no question of law, much less a substantial question of law being the requirement u/s 260A of the Act, for entertainment of the appeal. We are also in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal that no case was made out for addition to the income of the firm even if deposits made with the firm by the partners were unexplained income of the partners. This view has been taken by us in our recent order passed in CIT v. Metal Metals of India [ 2006 (11) TMI 630 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA] . Thus, the question referred is answered against the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Kamlesh Rani, partner accepted having made the deposits, no addition can be made in the income of the firm. Reliance was placed, inter alia, on CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 781 (SC), CIT v. Ram Narain Goel [1997] 224 ITR 1802 (Punj. Har.), CIT v. Jaiswal Motor Finance [1983] 141 ITR 706 (All.) and Narayandas Kedarnath v. CIT [1952] 22 ITR 18 (Bom.). 3. We have heard learned counsel for the revenue and perused the record. 4. It is well-settled that whether explanation of the assessee about nature and source of the amounts credited in the books of account was satisfactory is a question of fact. In our recent order dated 24-10-2006 in Shiv Rice General Mills v. CIT [IT Appeal No. 400 of 2006], we observed as under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Jaiswal Motor Finance s case (supra), it was observed as under : . . . It appears to be well-settled that if there are cash credit entries in the books of the firm in which the accounts of the individual partners exist and it is found as a fact that cash was received by the firm from its partners, then in the absence of any material to indicate that they were profits of the firm, it could not be assessed in the hands of the firm. . . . 7. In Narayandas Kedarnath s case (supra), it was observed as under : . . .There may be a genuine case where a partner or a stranger may bring in moneys to the credit of the firm and the partner or the stranger may have come into those moneys by thoroughly dishonest means, but it is not for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see had discharged the burden that lay on him, then it could not be said that such a conclusion was unreasonable or perverse or based on no evidence. If the conclusion is based on some evidence on which a conclusion could be arrived at, no question of law as such arises. ) 9. In Ram Narain Goel s case (supra), this Court held as under : . . . The Tribunal correctly took the view that the assessee was not supposed to prove the source of the loans. Suspicion, howsoever, strong, cannot take the place of evidence or proof. . . . ) 10. We may also refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court on this issue in Girdhari Lal Nannelal v. CST [1977] 109 ITR 726 , wherein the Supreme Court observed as under : . . . Further, where, as in a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
