Case Details

Citation(s)
2008 SLG 2896 2008 SLD 2896 (2008) 299 ITR 53
Punjab and Haryana High Court
IT CASE NO. 132 OF 1994 FEBRUARY 28, 2006
D.K., JAIN, C.J. AND SURYA KANT, J.
Dr. N.L. Sharda for the Appellant. S.K. Mukhi and Ms. Harshali Chaudhary for the
Respondent.

Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kulwant Singh and Co.

Law:

Section:

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash Credits  Where Tribunal had recorded in clear terms that amounts found credited in capital accounts of partners had come from savings bank accounts of both partners, Assessing Officer was not justified in adding such amounts to assessee-firm's income. [A.Y. 1989-90]. The assessee-firm was asked to prove the genuineness of two amounts in the capital accounts of its two partners. In furtherance thereto, wealth-tax statements of the partners; copies of their assessment orders and pass books were furnished to the Assessing Officer. However, not being satisfied with the evidences produced, the Assessing Officer added the said amount of Rs. 2,60,000 to the returned income of the firm, as its unexplained and ingenuine cash credits. Observing that the bank drafts had been obtained by both the partners from their respective savings bank accounts, copies whereof had been produced before the Assessing Officer, which fact was confirmed by the bank and the financial standing of both the partners was sound the tribunal deleted the addition. Held that the tribunal had recorded in clear terms that the amounts found credited in the capital accounts of the partners had come from the savings bank accounts of both the partners. The Tribunal had recorded that the copies of those accounts were also produced before the Assessing Officer. Thus, there being no doubt about the identity of the creditors and the source being the bank account, wherein sufficient credit balance was available, no fault could be found with the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee has discharged the onus to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the two creditors, who happened to be the partners of the assessee-firm. The finding that the onus had been discharged by the assessee was a question of fact. Thus, the deletion of the addition was justified. JUDGMENT D.K. Jain, CJ.-By this petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act), the Revenue seeks a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (for short, the Tribunal) to state the case and refer the following question, for the opinion of this…
🔒
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