Back
1986 Supreme(Cal) 32
High Court Of Calcutta
Satish Chandra, Suhas Chandra Sen
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - Appellant
Versus
LOHATY BROS.(P.) LTD. - Respondent
Income Tax Reference 341 Of 1975
Decided On : 01/28/1986
H.M.DHAR, M.L.SAHA, SUKUMAR BHATTACHARYA
The genuineness of cash credits and the discharge of onus cast by Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are questions of fact, and the burden of proof lies with the assessee.
Headnote:
Genuineness of Cash Credits - Income Tax Act - The court found that the genuineness of the loans claimed to have been advanced by the parties was proved by the assessee, thereby discharging the onus cast upon it by Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Fact of the Case:
The Tribunal referred questions regarding the deletion of amounts from the total income of the assessee for two assessment years based on confessional statements and genuineness of loans claimed to have been advanced.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the loans had been proved by the assessee, and the Tribunal's conclusion was upheld. The questions were answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee.
Issues: Genuineness of loans claimed, deletion of amounts from total income, discharge of onus cast by Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the question of discharge of onus is always a question of fact, and the Tribunal's conclusion on the genuineness of the loans was upheld based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision: Both questions were answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee. No order as to costs.
( 1 ) THE Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law to this court for our opinion :"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the confessional statement given before the Department by Shri Vindananda Surekha, Surekha Jute Co. , the Tribunal was right in deleting the amount of Rs. 60,000 from the total income of the assessee relating to the assessment year J 964-65 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the confessional statement given by Shri Tarachand Surekha, the Tribunal was right in deleting the amount of Rs. 25,000 credited in the name of Jain Finance Distributors (India) (P.) Ltd. for the assessment year 1965-66? "
( 2 ) THE question was whether the genuineness of the loans claimed to have been advanced by Vindananda Surekha, Surekha Jute Co. and also Tarachand Surekha were proved by the assessee. The question really is whether the assessee has been able to discharge the onus cast upon it by Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, of proving the genuineness of cash credits. The question of discharge of onus is always a question of fact. Here, the Tribunal, on a review of the evidence that was on record, came to the conclusion that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was right in holding that the loans had been proved. No question of perversity has been raised. It is really a question of appreciation of evidence. Whether this court agrees with the inference of fact made by the Tribunal or not is not really material.
( 3 ) THEREFORE, both the questions are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
