9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (2) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal income of Rs. 62,628. Later on, Sh. Swaraj Singh, proprietor of Messrs. Gurdit Singh Swaraj Singh, gave a statement on 18th August, 1969, before some other ITO that he was doing hawala business and that the credits appearing in the name of Messrs. Gurdit Singh Swaraj Singh were bogus. Thereupon, the ITO reopened the assessment in the present case under s. 147(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter called " the Act"), and called upon the assessee to produce further evidence in support of the genuineness of the cash credit in question. On the failure of the assessee to produce any further evidence, the ITO added the sum of Rs. 27,000 to its income as income from undisclosed sources. This addition was also upheld by the AAC in appeal. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the cash credits in question. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the assessee disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment and when that was done, the ITO was not justified to change his opinion on the basis of some uncorroborated evidence that came to his notice later on. " In the subsequent part of the order, the Tribunal found as follows : " In the present case there is absolutely no material on record to prove that the loans in question were really fictitious. The department merely relies upon the statement dated August 18,1969, of Shri Swaraj Singh. But this statement cannot be accepted because the same was never recorded in the presence of the assessee. Since the assessee did not get ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntry of Rs. 27,000 in the name of Messrs. Gurjit Singh Swaraj Singh was genuine or not is essentially a question of fact and the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that there was no material on the record to prove that the loans in question were really fictitious. The relevant findings of the Tribunal which have been reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment are self-explanatory. Mr. Awasthy, the learned counsel for the revenue, could not point out any material on the record to show that the Tribunal misdirected itself in recording the above findings. As observed earlier, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are findings of fact and it thus cannot be successfully contended that the questions mentioned in the petitions are questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
