9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 860X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re not verifiable. The Tribunal has erred insofar as the finding that the fundamental fact of the assessee having collected deposits from the public stands proved with respect to the entire cash credits so recovered. It can be said to have been proved, only with respect to the verifiable materials produced before the AO and on which the AO had entered a satisfaction. There could hence be no rule of probability applied as against the specific provision under Section 68 of the Act. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal acted erroneously and in a perverse manner insofar as directing deletion of the addition not proved before the AO; applying the rule of probability, which is alien to the Act. Matter remanded back to AO for verificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redits under Section 68. The assessee proffered evidence in the nature of confirmation received from the depositors and the agents. Wherever there was evidence produced to the satisfaction of the AO, there was no addition made to income. On those cash credits, which could not be supported by sufficient evidence, addition was made by the AO. 3. Before the first appellate authority also, certain other materials were produced, specifically with respect to four depositors and four agents for the year 1999-2000 and six depositors and four agents for the year 2001-2002. The first appellate authority refused to consider the same under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, where there was an obligation on the assessee to produce it before the AO. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of probability applied as against the specific provision under Section 68 of the Act. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal acted erroneously and in a perverse manner insofar as directing deletion of the addition not proved before the AO; applying the rule of probability, which is alien to the Act. We also find that there is absolutely no proof offered with respect to the additions made. However, we notice that before the first appellate authority, the assessee had produced proof of four depositors and four agents for the year 1999-2000 and six depositors and four agents for the year 2001-2002. The same shall be produced before the AO, who shall consider its veracity and enter a finding on the same. The remand is confined to that aspect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
