TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1980 (8) TMI 25
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....----------- Sr. Name of the Amount Date of Date of No. party receipt return --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rs. 1. M/s. Pratap Singh 20,000 2-6-66 30-1-67 Surbir Singh 2. M/s. Chandi Ram 15,000 7-11-66 4-2-67 Jagdish Lal 3. M/s. Didar Singh 30,000 11-11-66 8-3-67 Charan Singh 4. M/s. Faquir Singh 8,000 13-11-66 11-4-67 Pahuja --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The ITO was satisfied with the genuineness of the cash credit of Rs. 20,000 appearing in the name of M/s. Pratap Sin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ri Prithipal Singh identified the signature of his deceased father on the discharged pronote and the certificate dated April 11, 1967, issued by Shri Faquir Singh. In addition to this evidence, the assessee also wrote a letter dated March 20, 1972, and produced his own affidavit dated March 20, 1972, confirming the loans in question. The ITO rejected the evidence produced by the assessee. He observed that M/s. Didar Singh Charan Singh, M/s. Chandi Ram Jagdish Lal and M/s. Faquir Singh Pahuja were mere name-lenders and that many other parties had surrendered cash credits appearing in their names. He refused to accept the genuineness of the cash credits appearing in the names of the said parties on the ground that they were not produced by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the AAC be set aside and the case should be decided by the Tribunal on merits. This prayer was opposed on behalf of the department and it was contended that it was on the plea of the assessee that he had not been given full opportunity of producing evidence that the case was remanded. It was pleaded that the AAC had plenary powers and, therefore, the remand order was justified. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the AAC was legally competent to set aside the order and direct the ITO to make further enquiries. As regards the second plea whether the AAC had rightly remanded the case, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal held as follows: " The next question for consideration is whether the Appellate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he present case, so far as the cash credits appearing in the names of M/s. Didar Singh Charan Singh and M/s. Chandi Ram Jagdish Lal are concerned, the, assessee did not produce the parties concerned. The case of the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was that reasonable opportunity had not been granted by the Income-tax Officer to him to produce these parties, even though he had made several requests to examine them on commission. In these circumstances, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was quite fair to direct the Income-tax Officer to assist the assessee in summoning or examining these parties on commission. The mere omission on the part of the Income-tax Officer to examine M/s. Didar Singh Charan Singh and M/s. Chan....