FIRST INCOME TAX OFFICER v. AJITKUMAR C. PATEL
[Citation -1984-LL-0705-2]

Citation 1984-LL-0705-2
Appellant Name FIRST INCOME TAX OFFICER
Respondent Name AJITKUMAR C. PATEL
Court ITAT
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 05/07/1984
Assessment Year 1978-79
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags disallowance of interest • substantial evidence • undisclosed income • non-resident
Bot Summary: T. N. C. RANGARAJAN, J.M.: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition of cash credits as income of the assessee and the disallowance of interest on cash credits. The CIT has found that the assessee had discharged the burden of proving the identity of the creditors and their credit worthiness since the assessee had filed the passports of the creditors who are all non-residents and whose income had also been assessed in India. He further found that the IAC who made the assessment could not on the other hand marshal any evidence to show that these credits represented the assessee s own undisclosed income or even let in any substantial evidence to draw such an inference. In the circumstances, he accepted the cash credits as genuine and deleted the additions of the credits as well as the interest thereon as income of the assessee. The grounds of appeal relied on by the Revenue do not reveal any infirmity in the order of the CIT. They only amount to a plea for probing the source of the creditors funds which as pointed out by the CIT is unwarranted in law. Even if there is any question of suspicion about the sources of the creditors there can be no expression of it in this case as long as admittedly the creditors have been independently assessed. The assessee has filed a memorandum of Cross Objection only to support the order of the CIT(A).


T. N. C. RANGARAJAN, J.M.: This appeal by Revenue is directed against order of CIT(A) deleting addition of cash credits as income of assessee and disallowance of interest on cash credits. CIT has found that assessee had discharged burden of proving identity of creditors and their credit worthiness since assessee had filed passports of creditors who are all non-residents and whose income had also been assessed in India. He found that advances were given by them to assessee by cheques on non-resident (external) account and assessee had also paid interest by account payee cheques. He further found that IAC who made assessment could not on other hand marshal any evidence to show that these credits represented assessee s own undisclosed income or even let in any substantial evidence to draw such inference. In circumstances, he accepted cash credits as genuine and deleted additions of credits as well as interest thereon as income of assessee. Revenue is in appeal but is unable to point out any evidence to contradict findings of CIT(A). grounds of appeal relied on by Revenue do not reveal any infirmity in order of CIT. They only amount to plea for probing source of creditors funds which as pointed out by CIT is unwarranted in law. Even if there is any question of suspicion about sources of creditors there can be no expression of it in this case as long as admittedly creditors have been independently assessed. In circumstances, we have no hesitation in confirming order of CIT(A). appeal is dismissed. assessee has filed memorandum of Cross Objection only to support order of CIT(A). Hence it is also dismissed. *** FIRST INCOME TAX OFFICER v. AJITKUMAR C. PATEL
Report Error