TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (7) TMI 133
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....90, the assessee Mohanlal Sethi of Paona Bazar, Imphal (since deceased and at present represented by a legal heir Pramod Kumar Sethi), filed a return before the Income-tax Officer showing the total income of Rs. 69,408. The assessee had also shown investment in land and building amounting to Rs. 12,18,750. The assessee disclosed certain amounts as loan from family members and relations and the assessing authority holding, inter alia, that out of the said loan a sum of Rs. 8,35,000 on account of loan is not genuine and accordingly it was added as income of the assessee. The said assessment order was challenged before the Commissioner of Income-tax in Appeal No. Imp-14/91-92 and the appellate authority allowed the appeal and directed delet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appeal was admitted for hearing on the following questions of law: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Tribunal is vitiated in law for not recording its own independent findings on the different issue on facts on due consideration of the evidence and materials on record in reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) without passing a speaking and reasoned order? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had any material to justify its finding and conclusion when the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had given a finding that the assessee had discharged the onus to prove the identity, genuineness and capacity of the creditor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on is final." Mr. Bhuyan has also drawn our attention to a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Raunaq Ram Nand Lal v. CIT [2002] 254 ITR 617. In Raunaq Ram Nand Lal v. [2002] 254 ITR 617 (P & H), the High Court felt that there is a finding of the Tribunal as regards the creditworthiness of the creditors and the finding is based on appreciation of evidence and as such no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises. At this stage, we may have a look at section 68 of the Income-tax Act which reads as follows: "68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the expl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th his creditors, and the creditworthiness of his creditors vis-a-vis the transactions, which he had with the creditors. The burden had, then, shifted to the Revenue to show that though covered by cheques, the amounts, in question, actually belonged to, or were owned by, the assessee himself, but no material, direct or indirect, exists on record to come to such a conclusion confidently and boldly." The case of Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati) was also in respect of cash credit and this court relying on the earlier decision in Tolaram Daga v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 632 (Assam) held that when the assessee had discharged his burden under section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden shifts to the Assessing Officer to prove th....