9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 834X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal, it scarcely lies in the mouth of the assessee to question the propriety of the Assessing Officer having found the explanation furnished by the assessee to be unsatisfactory. Thus particularly since the Assessing Officer found on facts that there was no plausible explanation justifying the cash credits and the Appellate Tribunal accepted the same, no substantial question of law is raised - decided against assessee - ITAT No. 329 of 2016, GA No. 2631 of 2016 With GA No. 1308 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 27-6-2018 - MR. SANJIB BANERJEE AND MR. ABHIJIT GANGOPADHYAY, JJ. For The Petitioner : Mr. Ram Chandra Prabesh, Adv., Mr. Prabir Banerjee, Adv. And Mr. Shiv Ch. Prasad, Adv. For The Respondent : Mr. V. Kundalia, Adv. ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the HUF and the investing company, whereupon no authorized representative of such alleged share applicants turned up before the Assessing Officer. However, certain documents materialized, possibly presented by the asseessee, which the Assessing Officer found difficult to accept since no one had certified such documents to be correct or took responsibility therefor. Even with this caveat, the Assessing Officer went into the contents of the documents and found that such documents did not evidence the investment of the sum of ₹ 10 lakh by the HUF in the assessee or the investment of ₹ 8.02 lakh by Ramsay International Limited in the assessee. Section 68 of the Act mandates that where any sum is found credited in the books of an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, the Assessing Officer made inquiries and discovered that its registered office was in a residential complex or building. Further inquiries with the persons in the neighborhood or the locality revealed that they were unaware of the existence of such company at the given address. The appellant-assessee has referred to a judgment of this Court reported at 114 ITR 689 for the proposition that upon the identity of the person who has put in the money being established by the assessee, the onus is on the Revenue to discredit the explanation offered in terms of Section 68 of the Act. In the present case, there was no plausible explanation that was furnished by the assessee. At any rate, the identities of the alleged share applicants could not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
