2019 (6) TMI 1128

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....has proposed the following questions as the substantial questions of law arising in this tax appeal : "[A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made under section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash credits? [B] Whether the evidence furnished by the assessee in support of (i) identify (ii) genuineness of transaction and (iii) creditworthiness of each of the creditors on facts of the case as per records is sufficient evidence to uphold the cash credits in all cases to be genuine u/s. 68 of the Act? [C] Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition by holding the introduction of capital in the books of M/s Jay Jewellers as explained sourc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nnot be mirror image of each other - as the Assessing Officer erroneously expected these accounts to be. This comparison was incorrect. In a situation in which assessee and it's proprietorship concern are maintaining separate books of accounts - as in the present case, an assessee may have his own capital of 'x' amount, and yet his capital contribution in capital account of a proprietorship concern can be more than 'x' amount because such funding of capital can be not only out of own capital but out of other available funds as well. The Assessing Officer should have compared the capital account of the Jay Jewellers, with the account of Jay Jewellers in the hands of the assessee, it's proprietor. We have compared these two accounts, which ar....