TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court affirms Tribunal's decision on credit transaction genuineness & creditor capacity. Burden of proof & appellate limits.</h1> The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the appellant's failure to prove the genuineness of the credit transaction and the alleged ... Substantial questions of law - Cash credits - assessee introduced a sum of Rs. 50,000 in the name of Sh. Surinder Kumar as a deposit. - alleged creditor was not in a capacity to deposit the loan with the assessee-firm - '(i) Whether, evidence placed on record the finding that Sh. Surinder Kumar had no identifiable source of income out of which he could advance the loan is sustainable in law? - (ii) Whether, provisions of section 68 be invoked and it be held that the loans advanced by Surinder Kumar each in the relevant assessment years is to be treated as an income of the appellant?' - Substantial questions of law which are sought to be raised by the appellant in the present appeal, in our opinion, strictly speaking, fall within the realm of reappreciation of the evidence, which this court will not like to do in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction conferred under section 260A of the Act, where the jurisdiction vested in this court is only to examine a substantial question of law arising out of an order passed by the Tribunal. - findings are clearly findings of fact recorded concurrently by all the authorities. The issues raised by the appellant are not even questions of law, what to term these substantial questions of law Issues:1. Whether the finding that the alleged creditor had no identifiable source of income to advance a loan is sustainableRs.2. Whether the loans advanced by the alleged creditor should be treated as income of the appellant under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961Rs.Analysis:1. The appellant, engaged in the business of a commission agent, introduced a sum of Rs. 50,000 in the name of an alleged creditor. The Assessing Officer found that the alleged creditor was not capable of depositing the loan and that it was an entry arranged by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld this finding, stating that the alleged creditor lacked the capacity and identifiable source to advance the loan. The Tribunal's decision was based on evidence showing discrepancies in the alleged creditor's financial transactions and lack of proof of creditworthiness. The Tribunal concluded that the addition of Rs. 50,000 was justified as the appellant failed to prove the creditor's capacity or identifiable source.2. Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, allows adding any unexplained sum credited in the books of the assessee as income if no satisfactory explanation is provided. The concurrent findings of all authorities revealed that the appellant could not prove the genuineness of the credit or the alleged creditor's capacity and identifiable source for the loan. The appellant's failure to provide evidence led to the addition under section 68. The Tribunal's decision was based on established principles that the onus is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of credit entries, the identity and capacity of the creditor, and the genuineness of the transaction.3. The appellant raised substantial questions of law challenging the Tribunal's findings. However, the High Court emphasized that it would not interfere unless the Tribunal's findings were perverse or based on no evidence. The Court cited precedents highlighting that findings of fact by the Tribunal are final unless shown to be perverse. The Court reiterated that the appellant failed to establish a substantial question of law warranting interference. The Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the issues raised were findings of fact and not substantial questions of law.In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the appellant's failure to prove the genuineness of the credit transaction and the alleged creditor's capacity. The Court's analysis focused on established legal principles regarding the burden of proof on the assessee and the limitations of appellate jurisdiction in challenging factual findings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
