Case Details

Citation(s)
1998 SLG 450 1998 SLD 450 1998 PTD 3411 (1997) 223 ITR 250 (1998) 77 TAX 35
Gauhati High Court
Income-tax Reference No.8 of 1995, decision dated: 22-08-1996
D.N. BARUAH AND S.B. ROY, JJ
J.B. Bhattacharjee and R.K. Joshi for the Assessee. U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner

RAICHAND KOTHARI (HUF)

VS

COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax

Law: Income Tax Act, 1961

Section: 254,68

(a) Income-tax----Cash credit---Appeal to Appellate Tribunal ---CIT (Appeals) accepting explanation with regard to some of cash credits---Tribunal reversing decision of CIT (Appeals) without a reasoned order---Order of Tribunal was not justified---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.68 & 254. (b) Income-tax--- ----Appeal to Appellate Tribunal---Tribunal is final fact finding authority--¬Duty of Tribunal to consider evidence on record---Tribunal reversing decision of first appellate authority---Duty of Tribunal to pass reasoned order---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.254. The decision of the Assam High Court in Tolaram Daga v. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 632, makes it clear that if a deposit is made by a third party, the Income-tax Officer is not powerless to consider whether such deposit is genuine or not. While considering that aspect of the matter the principles laid down in the said case are relevant inasmuch as section 34 of the Evidence Act is also relevant for the purpose of determining the genuineness of the entries made in the books of account. No doubt, the Evidence Act as such is not applicable in income-tax matters. But the spirit of the Act has to be followed. If such books of account are not challenged, those books of account should be considered as genuine. It will not be necessary on the part of the assessee to further prove the capability of the depositor. The Tribunal is the last authority so far as facts are concerned. The Tribunal is required to consider each and every fact and discuss the evidence available on record. It may not always be necessary to discuss each and every piece of evidence in detail while affirming the order. But in case of reversal, the Tribunal is duty bound to discuss each piece of evidence placed before it and come to an independent finding by giving reasons. The assessee in order to meet its business requirement took loans from various persons during the assessment year 1982-83 and in the preceding assessment year which were reflected in the balance-sheet. Confirmation of loan statements by the creditors had been furnished to the Assessing Officer. The assessee had also furnished the income-tax file numbers of the creditors and…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492