9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intaining the addition of Rs. 1,50,000 ignoring the submissions made by the appellant. 2. That the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad on facts and in law and is liable to be amended as per the foregoing ground of appeal. 3. That the appellant craves to leave to add, amend, modify or substitute any grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing." 2. We have heard the counsel for the assessee as well as the learned Departmental Representative. 3. The brief facts relevant to the issue involved in this appeal and as have been revealed from the records, are that during the period relevant to asst. yr. 1997-98 the assessee had taken a loan of Rs. 90,000 from one Shri Teju Mal and another loan of Rs. 60,000 from Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he addition of Rs. 1,50,000. 4. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) but failed. 5. It was in the light of the above facts and circumstances that the counsel for the assessee in addition to the submissions reiterated the submissions made by the assessee. The assessee submitted that both the creditors being income-tax assessees, the loans having been received through crossed account payee cheques and both the creditors having been examined by the AO wherein they have confirmed giving of loan to the assessee, there was no reason to disbelieve the capacity of the creditors. According to the learned counsel when the Revenue authorities were asking for their source of source which, as settled law, cannot be enquired. 6. Accordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itors were made in cash and just before issuing cheque in our opinion could (not) be sufficient ground for doubting the capacity of the creditors. The Revenue authorities have not brought any evidence on record to show that the amount deposited in cash in the bank accounts of the creditors belong to the assessee. In absence of such evidence their finding is of no use except that the same has to be held to be on conjectures and surmises. 9. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the assessee having discharged the onus put on it by the provisions of s. 68 and there being no evidence contrary to that brought by the Revenue, the addition made cannot be sustained and consequently the same is delet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
