9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount . The explanation preferred was that the partner who was looking after the books of account was not available. The Tribunal has not lent credence to the same. The same is in the realm of facts. We are inclined to accept that the Tribunal has rightly not given credence to the same and the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal in that regard is absolutely impeccable. Hence, we are disposed to hold that the Tribunal was not justified in arriving at the finding that the purchase of silver vide bill dated October 8, 1985, of M/s. Chouksey Rajnikant and Co., for silver ornaments of 59.547 kgs., amounting to Rs. 1,50,000, which was found recorded in the books of account found at the time of search, was not a genuine purchase and the Tribunal was justified in arriving at the finding that the purchase of silver ornaments weighing 38.990 kgs. for Rs. 99,552 vide bill dated October 28, 1985, was not genuine purchase. Consequently, question No.1 is answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee and question No.2 is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. - Dipak Misra And S. C. Sinho JJ. For the Assessee : H. S. Shrivastava with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecorded in the books of account found at the time of search, while the second purchase bill dated October 28, 1985, was not recorded in such books. In such entire proceeding the purchase of 98.473 kgs. from M/s. Chouksey Rajnikant and Co., Sagar was treated as non-genuine and accordingly the addition of Rs. 2,49,552 was made. On an appeal being preferred the entire addition was deleted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). On further appeal being preferred before the Tribunal, it reversed the order of the first appellate authority and upheld that of the Assessing Officer. 3. After disposal of the appeal the assessee preferred an application under section 256(1) of the Act seeking reference of seven questions to this court for opinion. The Tribunal referred only two questions, as has been indicated hereinabove for the opinion of this court. 4. We have heard Mr. H. S. Shrivastava, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Akshat Shrivastava for the applicant-assessee, and Mr. Rohit Arya, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Sanjay Lal for the respondent- Revenue. 5. It is submitted by Mr. H. S. Shrivastava, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Akshat Shrivastava for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s) by putting the onus on the assessee with regard to the source. In this context, we may refer to the decision rendered in CIT v. Metachem Industries [2000] 245 ITR 160 (MP), wherein the Division Bench of this court has held as under (page 162) : Once it is established that the amount has been invested by a particular person, be he a partner or an individual, then the respon sibility of the assessee-firm is over. The assessee-firm cannot ask that person who makes investment whether the money invested is pro perly taxed or not. The assessee is only to explain that this investment has been made by the particular individual and it is the responsibility of that individual to account for the investment made by him. If that person owns that entry, then the burden of the assessee-firm is dis charged. It is open to the Assessing Officer to undertake further investigation with regard to that individual who has deposited this amount. Thereafter, the Division Bench proceeded to state as under (page 162) : Whether that person is an Income-tax payer or not or from where he has brought this money is not the responsibility of the firm. The moment the firm gives a satisfactory explana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Gauhati) the Bench ruled as under (page 263) : Since it is not the business of the assessee to find out the sources(s) from where the creditor has accumulated the amount, which he has advanced, in form of the loan, to the assessee, section 68 cannot be read to show that in the case of failure of the sub-creditors to prove their creditworthiness, the amount advanced as loan to the assessee by the creditor shall have to be read, as a corollary, as the income from undisclosed source of the assessee himself. 12. In the case of CIT v. Mehrotra Brothers [2004] 270 ITR 157 a Division Bench of this court placing reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of Shankar Industries v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 689 (Cal), Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Delhi), CIT v. Kohinoor Tobacco Products P. Ltd. [1998] 234 ITR 557 (MP), Nanak Chandra Laxman Das v. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 151 (All) and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC), expressed the view that when the identity of the parties is given the genuineness or the capacity of the lenders and transaction are not to be discarded on the ground that the assessee had not explained satisfactorily the cash cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
