TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (10) TMI 21
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orthiness of the creditor in question had not been disputed to be unsound? (3) Whether, on the true and correct interpretation of the provisions of section 68 of the Income-tax Act, was the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal correct in law in sustaining the aforesaid amount as the income of the assessee for the instant assessment year? (4) Whether, the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is not vitiated as it proceeded to sustain the addition based upon certain statements which were admittedly recorded behind the back of the assessee and had not been confronted to her on the mere assumption that the assessee had made no efforts to challenge the enquiries made from the village which was not confronted? (5) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the additions in the account of Smt. Kamlesh w/o Shri Makhan Lal of Rs. 49,316 and of Smt. Krishna w/o Shri Ami Lal of Rs. 48,709? (6) Whether, on the material on record. the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified and right in law in ho that the credits aggregating to Rs. 98,025 had rightly been asses-ed as the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources? (7) Whether the Income-tax A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ignoring the fact that there was no dispute about their identity and the source of their income namely, agriculture. He argued that the pattern of deposits and the withdrawals made within the short period could not lead to an inference that deposits were not genuine. In support of his arguments, learned counsel relied on Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SC); CIT v. Ram Prasad Ram Bhagat [1987] 163 ITR 202 (Patna) ; Pushkar Narain Sarraf CIT [1990] 183 ITR 388 (All) ; CIT v. Kakkar Complex Steels Pvt. Ltd. [1996] 222 ITR 184 (P&H) and CIT v. Bedi and Co. P. Ltd. [1998] 230 ITR 580 (SC) and submitted that the Tribunal may be directed to refer above reproduced questions for the opinion of this court. 4. Shri Rajesh Bindal, learned counsel for the Revenue, emphasized that the assessee which was engaged in the business of the sale of iron and Steel did not have any occasion to accept the money from Shri Dalip Singh who was not even a resident of the village where the assessee was operating and argued that the Assessing Officer did not commit any error by making additions of the amounts shown in his credit. Shri Bindal then submitted that the amounts shown in the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the creditworthiness of the party should be shown but also that, he had sufficient finds to advance on the date when the amount was given to the assessee. No evidence in this respect is on record. Taking an overall view of the facts we are of the considered view that the credit is not genuine and hence cannot be accepted. We would however accept the assessee's alternative plea that at best the peak of the amount should be added. We would, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to allow relief on account of the peak of the credits for which the addition has been made in this case…. The next additions pertain to Rs. 49,316 and Rs. 48,709 made on account of deposits of Smt. Kamlesh w/o. Shri Makhan Lal, a partner, and Smt. Krishna w/o. Shri Ami Lal, partner. Both the parties admitted of having advanced the amounts to the assessee-firm and their statements were also recorded by the Assessing Officer. The explanation rendered by them which was identical, was not accepted by the Assessing Officer as well as the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the reasons as given in their orders. According to the learned authorized representative the identities of the parties....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... statement, she has been earning the income right from the year 1976 when she was married that in her return filed by Smt. Kamlesh. The amounts shown were in the form of gifts and cash from relatives friends, etc. The income derived from knitting and tailoring declares for the assessment year 1987-88 was only Rs. 10,000. Further more. The return had been filed under the amnesty scheme and that too on the date March 31, 1987. As per the statement, the amounts were first given to the ladies of village on interest and after receiving the same from them (names of few of them mentioned by her) it was deposited in the bank and then advanced to the firm. For this there is no evidence brought on record. A copy of the bank account on the other hand s that a sum of Rs. 40,050 was first deposited and then withdrawn immediately thereafter. Right from April 1, 1987, to September 21' there is no deposit in the bank then there appeared a sum of Rs. 13.900 which is followed by Rs. 1,100 on September 21, 1988. Subsequently, withdrawals were made for an amount of Rs. 15,000. If there are any with drawals thereafter, the statement is not before us. Similar is the case in regard to Smt. Krishna. Like ....