TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (11) TMI 240
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The appeal was admitted for determination of the following substantial questions of law by this Court: "1- Whether the Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the order of the authorities below, wherein the latter had treated certain 'deposits' as 'unexplained cash credits', by neither taking any cognizance of the 'affidavits' of the 'depositors' as per which their identity and source of deposits stood duly substantiated nor bring any material on record which could go to refute the contents of the same? 2- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in law by treating the deposits of Rs. 10,000/- each of S/Smt. Payal Sehgal and Veena Rani as 'unexplained cash credit' and therein not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cer and despite various submissions made on behalf of the assessee nothing favourable could be gained by him. The assessing officer, thus, again put its seal on the additions made earlier. The CIT(A) on receipt of report from the assessing officer sustained the additions made by him and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 9.2.2000 as the assessee had not produced material to substantiate genuineness of those deposits. The CIT(A) in paras 3.4 to 3.6 observed as under: " 3.4 The A.O. has since submitted his report dated 24/ 27-12-99, copy of which was made available to the appellant. It was pointed out by the Ld. A.O. that the Ld. counsel Sh. K.K. Sareen, C.A. was asked to furnish whatever evidence he had to prove the source of de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the assessee. No evidence was produced before the A.O. even when another opportunity was allowed to the assessee to produce necessary evidence before the A.O. during the remand proceedings as mentioned above. In these circumstances, the action of the A.O. in treating the deposits of Rs. 4,22,300/- as income of the assessee was justified and is upheld." The assessee took the matter in appeal before the Tribunal and emphatically submitted that the assessing officer and CIT(A) had failed to appreciate the facts in the right spirit. Before the Tribunal as well, the assessee reiterated its submissions made before the authorities below. The Tribunal while partly allowing the appeal provided one more opportunity to the assessee to prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Lucknow, (1958) 333 ITR 786 and Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and others, (1987) 167 ITR 471. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the assessee. It would be apt to reproduce the findings recorded by the Tribunal in paras 3.9 and 3.11 of its order, which are: "3.9. Now in this case, it is a fact that the assessee did not file any evidence and even affidavits during the course of assessment proceedings. Even during the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee could file affidavits only in respect of 15 depositors. The Ld. CIT(A) referred these affidavits to the A.O. with a direction to examine the same in the light of evidence whatever the assessee would l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... before the AO as reported by the AO. The order sheet entry dated 8.2.2000 is duly signed by these persons. However, the reply submitted in the letter dated 8.2.2000 is on record of CIT(A)'s folder at pages 87 & 88. In the said letter, it has been mentioned that on 17.12.1999, few depositors were asked to come to the office for recording their evidence, but they could not turn within officials hours and as such three more persons appeared at about 5.30 P.M. and their affidavits were got signed from them and attested. The details for the same were given in the letter. These facts clearly show that the assessee could not produce the depositors despite opportunity allowed by the AO during the course of remand proceedings. The contentions of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cepted and no addition on account of cash credit should be made." As observed by the CIT(A) and also recorded by the Tribunal, the assessee had been provided ample opportunities to Income Tax Appeal No. 61 of 2006 9 substantiate its claim with regard to depositors to be genuine, but the assessee had failed to discharge the onus placed upon it by establishing the identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the deposits. The CIT(A) had already provided another opportunity to the assessee to prove its case but the assessee had failed to produce any material to show the deposits to be genuine. The Tribunal had remanded the case with regard to four depositors whereas other depositors were held not to be genuine....