2018 (8) TMI 860

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....OME TAX For The Respondent : SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.), SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS, SRI.P.GOPINATH And SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI JUDGMENT Vinod Chandran, J. The questions of law arising in the aforesaid appeals relating to the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2001-2002 are re-framed as follows:- (1) Whether the Tribunal was correct in having applied a rule of probability to delete the additions made under Se....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o treat the same as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The assessee proffered evidence in the nature of confirmation received from the depositors and the agents. Wherever there was evidence produced to the satisfaction of the AO, there was no addition made to income. On those cash credits, which could not be supported by sufficient evidence, addition was made by the AO. 3. Before the firs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unal then relied on the provisions of the Companies Act and the permission granted for accepting deposits from the public to find that there is no dispute as to the deposits having been accepted from the public. Merely because there was a permission granted under the Companies Act to accept deposits from the public, it does not necessarily follow that the deposits shown are really those received f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Tribunal acted erroneously and in a perverse manner insofar as directing deletion of the addition not proved before the AO; applying the rule of probability, which is alien to the Act. We also find that there is absolutely no proof offered with respect to the additions made. However, we notice that before the first appellate authority, the assessee had produced proof of four depositors and four a....