TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (3) TMI 95
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt in the computation of the assessee's income. The disallowance was also confirmed by the AAC. 2. The assessee is now in appeal before us. The submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee was that the payment had been wrongly noted as having been made on 21st March, 1979, while, in fact, the correct date was 21st Jan., 1979. He proved this fact by placing before us the assessee's cash book. His second submission was that the assessee had made purchases on 21st Jan., 1979 and the payment had also been made on the same date, which happened to the Sunday and, therefore, a bank holiday. He further submitted that the assessee was a new firm having been started in the year under appeal itself and, therefore, the seller of the goods was also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceived discount on cash payment. There is no dispute in the case either about the identity of the payee or about the genuineness of the payment, which are the other requirements of the Rule 6DD. We, therefore, delete the addition of Rs. 3,404. 4. The next contention relates to two additions of Rs. 5,000 each. The ITO found credits of Rs. 5,000 each in the accounts of partners, Smt. Gayatri Devi and Shri Radhey Shyam. Both these amounts were credited in their respective accounts on 13th July, 1978. The firm was started on 12th June, 1978. Smt. Gayatri Devi gave a statement on oath to the ITO stating that she had invested the amount in the firm as her capital on 12th July, 1978 and that in represented her savings out of gifts received on he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....discharged the onus of proving the deposits in its accounts and was not further required to explain the source of the deposits in the hands of the depositors. On a reference, it was held that the onus placed on the assessee by s. 68 of the Act had been discharged. 6. Similar position, as was found in the case of Jaiswal Motor Finance exists in the present case. In this case also the deposits have come as capital contribution from the partners at the time of the start of the firm. Without these, the business of the firm could not have commenced. In our opinion, therefore, the assessee has succeed in discharging its onus in terms of s. 68 of the Act in view of the principle already stated above. It is, therefore, not necessary for us to dea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iately and took it back sometime thereafter. It appear that no explanation was offered regarding the deposit of Rs. 3,233 on 24th March, 1979. This amount has, of course, been debited to his account in two sums of Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 1,233 on 31st March, 1979. The ITO did not believe the explanations. He was of the opinion that all these amounts represented the assessee's own income from other sources. His view was upheld by the AAC. 9. The assessee is now in appeal before us. The first submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee before us was that the assessee did not require any money as he had enough cash on various dates and, therefore, it also did not pay any interest on the deposits, which had been made voluntarily by the parties. ....