Cash credit proof under section 68 depends on genuineness and creditworthiness; actual user governs depreciation claims.

In cash credit cases, the assessee must prove identity, creditworthiness and genuineness with credible evidence; where bank activity, cash deposits and surrounding circumstances make the explanation improbable on human probabilities, section 68 addition is sustained. On depreciation, actual user during the relevant year is decisive, and proof of delivery, hire bills and other records can support full-year allowance even without motor vehicle registration. The document also notes that disallowance for personal use of telephone, car depreciation and vehicle expenses may be sustained where factual basis is not displaced, while a separate addition for closing stock or work-in-progress is not warranted if receipts are already consistently accounted for in gross receipts.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the cash credits in the names of Maha Singh, Ramesh Duggar and Sohan Singh were proved so as to escape addition under section 68; (ii) whether the credit in the name of Satbir Singh was liable to be deleted; (iii) whether depreciation on the dumpers was allowable for the full year; (iv) whether the disallowance of part of telephone, car depreciation and vehicle expenses for personal use was justified; (v) whether the addition for alleged closing stock or work-in-progress was sustainable; and (vi) whether only half depreciation was allowable on the excavator.

Issue (i): whether the cash credits in the names of Maha Singh, Ramesh Duggar and Sohan Singh were proved so as to escape addition under section 68.

Analysis: The creditors' identity was accepted, but the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions were not established. The bank accounts showed long periods of inactivity followed by large cash deposits immediately before the advances, the explanation that huge cash was kept at home or with commission agents was found improbable, and the claimed agricultural income was not supported by satisfactory independent evidence. The burden under section 68 was held to rest on the assessee, and the explanation was tested on human probabilities and surrounding circumstances.

Conclusion: The additions in the names of Maha Singh, Ramesh Duggar and Sohan Singh were rightly sustained, and the assessee failed on this issue.

Issue (ii): whether the credit in the name of Satbir Singh was liable to be deleted.

Analysis: Satbir Singh's bank account reflected direct transfers to the assessee, there were no suspicious cash deposits preceding the transfer, he had appeared before the Assessing Officer and confirmed the loan, and the Revenue could not dislodge the factual findings accepted by the first appellate authority.

Conclusion: The deletion of the addition in the name of Satbir Singh was upheld in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether depreciation on the dumpers was allowable for the full year.

Analysis: The evidence showed delivery and actual use of the dumpers during the relevant year, including hire bills raised from the dates of delivery. Registration under the Motor Vehicles law was not treated as decisive for depreciation purposes once actual user was shown and the use for more than 180 days stood established.

Conclusion: Full-year depreciation on all four dumpers was allowable in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): whether the disallowance of part of telephone, car depreciation and vehicle expenses for personal use was justified.

Analysis: No material was shown to disturb the factual basis adopted by the income-tax authorities for attributing a personal element to these expenses and depreciation claims.

Conclusion: The disallowance was sustained and this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (v): whether the addition for alleged closing stock or work-in-progress was sustainable.

Analysis: The assessee had consistently followed the practice of crediting cheques received during the year as part of gross receipts, and the factual position accepted by the first appellate authority showed no basis for a separate addition on account of closing stock or work-in-progress.

Conclusion: The deletion of the addition was upheld in favour of the assessee.

Issue (vi): whether only half depreciation was allowable on the excavator.

Analysis: The evidence, including transport documents, delivery records, certificates and working bills, supported the finding that the excavator had been put to use on 31-3-1998, justifying depreciation for the relevant period.

Conclusion: Full relief on this issue was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The loan-credit additions were largely sustained except for the credit of Satbir Singh, the assessee succeeded on depreciation for the dumpers and excavator and on the deletion of the stock-related addition, while the disallowance for personal-use expenses was maintained, resulting in a mixed outcome.

Ratio Decidendi: In an explanation of cash credits, the assessee must establish creditworthiness and genuineness with credible evidence, and the explanation may be rejected when surrounding circumstances and human probabilities render it improbable, while depreciation depends on proof of actual user during the relevant period.

---