TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (3) TMI 48
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the deposits has been explained by the appellant? 2. Whether the genuineness of the gift is relevant for coming to the conclusion that the burden about the nature and source of the deposit has not been discharged?" Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows: The appeal relates to the Assessment Year 1992-93. The appellant is a partnership firm in which Mohd. Khalid and Zafar Ahmad were the partners. During the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year in question, Mohd. Khalid deposited a sum of Rs. 1,24,000/- whereas Zafar Ahmad deposited a sum of Rs. 1,04,000/- in their capital account in the firm. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Authority asked the appellant to ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch lay upon it under section 68 of the Act. The two partners, who have deposited the amount of Rs. 1,24,000/- and Rs. 1,04,000/- in their capital account have admitted the deposit made by them. They have further explained the source of the receipt of the said amount from various persons. The donors have also been produced before the Assessing Officer, who are income tax payee and they have filed their Income Tax Returns as also the Gift Tax Returns. They admitted of having given the amount by way of gift. Thus, the nature, source and credit-worthiness of the depositors have been proved beyond doubt and the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the credit-worthiness of the donors have not been established. He further submitted that mer....