9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gment under attack is not right, but only when it is shown to be wrong - See Dollar Co. v. Collector of Madras [ 1975 (5) TMI 87 - SUPREME COURT] . - Decided against assessee. - T.C.A. No. 503 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 14-2-2022 - Honourable Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan And Honourable Mr. Justice J.Sathya Narayana Prasad For the Appellant : M/s.A.L.Gandhimathi For the Respondent : Mrs.K.G.Usharani Junior Standing Counsel JUDGMENT R. MAHADEVAN, J. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed before this court. 2.This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 06.02.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No. 2215/Chny/2013, relating to the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sale and that, the new residential house was for the joint living of the husband and the wife? 6.Whether as per the facts of the case, to safeguard the interest of both sides, will it be appropriate to send issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the same afresh on merit? 4.The brief facts of the case are as follows: The appellant / assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2009-2010 on 09.07.2009 admitting a total income of ₹ 3,68,570/- and the same was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. While so, he was issued with a notice dated 03.09.2010 under Section 143(2), calling upon him to submit his explanation. In response to the same, the appellant's authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er from Shri S.K.Pandian, it is not known how the assessee was able to get the confirmation letter, copy of which is available at page 9 of the paper-book. Therefore, the entries made in the ledger and other cash book are all afterthought. It is not supporting the case of the assessee. The assessee has no satisfactory explanation for deposit of ₹ 46,50,000/- in the bank account. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. II. Cash deposit of ₹ 12,50,000/- The assessee claims that he advanced a sum of ₹ 12,50,000/- to one Shri R.Nagarajan for installation of pollution control plant. The said Shri Nagarajan was examined by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e money to the assessee as claimed? These facts were not established by the assessee. For cash credit, the assessee has to establish the identity of party, creditworthiness of party and genuineness of transaction. In this case, even though the assessee claims that money was paid to Shri Nagarajan, the genuineness of transaction of repayment and creditworthiness of Shri Nagarajan to repay the amount was not established. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly, the same is confirmed. III. Cash deposit of ₹ 6,00,000/- It is not in dispute that the assessee claimed before the Assessing officer that he received a sum of ₹ 6,00,000/- from one Shri D.Pal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fact finding body, dismissed the assessee's appeal. Moreover, the issues involved herein are all questions of facts and the same do not involve any principle of law, warranting interference at the hands of this court. In this regard, it may be useful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Metroark Ltd. v. CCE [(2004) 12 SCC 505], wherein it was held as under: 8. Even otherwise, the law on the subject is clear. The Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority. Unless it is shown that there is something perverse in its finding, this Court would not interfere. No authority is required for this purpose. But as a large number of authorities are cited, we refer to them: Pragati Computers (P) Ltd. v. Collector ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
