9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (7) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 50 with a contradiction in holding that all investment cannot be treated as unexplained though some of them are certainly not genuine?" The brief facts of the case are that certain investments were made by the assessee in the name of his wife Champa Devi and himself and also his daughter, Smt. Sumitra Devi, in a company known as Madhuvan Chemicals and Fertilisers P. Ltd., Udaipur. The returns in respect of six years were filed. The Income-tax Officer asked the assessee to explain the source of acquisition in respect of these investments and it was explained that the money had been borrowed from various transporters. The creditors were asked to be produced and some of them were produced. The Income-tax Officer found that the addresses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore him explaining the circumstances under which these loans were taken. The Tribunal observed : "while we do not dispute that some of these loans may be genuine ones, the mere fact that the story of the assessee was very probable or plausible would not necessarily mean that the same should have been accepted in toto." After taking into consideration the various facts, it was observed that at this stage it is impossible to verify the truth of these investments and as such the conclusion of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was upheld. We have considered the submissions made by the parties. Section 68 of the Income-tax Act refers to cash credits which are found in the books of the assessee. If the explanation offered by the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... burden was to be discharged by the assessee and all the creditors were not produced, their addresses were not given and cogent reasons were given by the Income-tax Officer. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has held that the explanation given by the assessee was plausible and probable. When the Tribunal was of the view that some of the investments were not genuine, it should not have upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the proper course was to set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) with a direction to either allow such amounts for which the assessee has been able to prove satisfactorily the investment or to give him the opportunity to prove such unexplained investments. The Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not been discharged and the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) could have been confirmed only if the Tribunal was satisfied that all the investments were satisfactorily explained. The explanation which has been given by the assessee before the Income-tax Officer could be considered by the Tribunal and on that basis it could come to a different conclusion than what has been arrived at by the Income-tax Officer. If on the basis of the explanation and evidence offered by the assessee before the Income-tax Officer, the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the investment has been explained, then it becomes a finding of fact, but the present is not a case where such a finding has been recorded and on the contrary the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
