2012 (4) TMI 700

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of ₹ 50 lakhs under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the appellant has failed to prove the identity of the party and the genuineness of the transaction? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, it could be concluded that the appellant has not discharged the primary onus cast on it by section 68 of the Act and no duty is cast on the assessing office to make further enquiries specially in the absence of any finding that the investor company was a mere name lender?" 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a company carrying on the manufacture of sale of cement. The appellant filed a return of income on 29.11.1996 admitting "Nil" income after setting off of brought forwar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the investment of ₹ 50,00,000/- is said to have been invested by Gold Crest Finance (India) Limited. With regard to the said investment by Gold Crest Finance (India) Limited, the appellant could not produce any information about the whereabouts of the said company in spite of addressing letters on 23.9.2002. 4. In computing the said income of ₹ 50 lakhs of the appellant, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) IV, Hyderabad, who by order dated 5.1.2004 held that the amount of ₹ 50 lakhs by Demand Drafts said to have been received by the Gold Crest Finance (India) Limited towards inter corporate deposit payable on demand was not able to be established. It is stated that the said &#837....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ances of the case, it is to be seen as to whether the questions raised by the appellant before this Court are the substantial questions of law that arise for consideration or not? 8. We are of the opinion that insofar as the first question is concerned, we do not see any substantial question of law arising for consideration as admittedly the appellant failed to prove the identity of the party and the genuineness of the transaction and therefore the Assessing Officer, the Appellate Commissioner as well as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal rightly sustained the addition of ₹ 50 lakhs under Section 68 of the Act. Insofar as the second question is concerned, we are of the opinion that the appellant has failed to discharge the primary onu....