Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
TAXAP/1210/2006 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX
APPEAL No. 1210 of
2006
=========================================================
ACID
& CHEMICALS CO. - Appellant(s)
Versus
COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX-I - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PRASHANT MANKAD for
Appellant(s) : 1,MR JAGDISH H MEHTA for Appellant(s) : 1,
None for
Opponent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE
MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
Date
: 22/03/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. The
assessee has challenged the judgment of the Tribunal dated
27.08.2004, seeking to raise following questions of law:
“(i)
Whether on facts and in law the Appellate Tribunal was right
conforming the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit
u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of the Appellant?
(ii) Whether
the Appellate Tribunal has rightly appreciated the facts of the case
for making section 68 of the Act applicable in the case of the
Appellant?”
2. The
issue pertain to unaccounted cash credits and effect of the same by
virtue of Section-68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Apparently,
upon examination of the Books of Accounts of the assessee, Firm, the
Assessing Officer found five cash credits, dated 01.04.1999, totaling
to Rs.30,00,000/- in favour of five female members of the family.
Such persons could not explain such credits, but, stated that one
Shri. Jagdish Somabhai Patel, husband of one of them would offer
explanation and it would be binding to all. It appears that said
Shri. Jagdish Somabhai Patel, in his statement, admitted that such
amounts were not recorded in income of the firm. He, further,
suggested that such incomes pertained to previous year. During the
course of hearing before the Tribunal, the learned Counsel for the
assessee, however, submitted that in the previous year also such
income was not disclosed.
4. The
Assessing Officer, by his order dated 21.10.2002, added such amount
of Rs.30,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit, under Section 68 of the
Income Tax Act and framed assessment showing total income of
Rs.36,24,261/-.
5. Assessee
carried the issue in appeal before the CIT Appeals. Such appeal
having been dismissed, the assessee, further, approached the Tribunal
and the Tribunal, by the impugned order confirmed the order passed by
the Income Tax Department and dismissed the appeal. The assessee has,
therefore, preferred the present appeal.
6. Having
heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, assessee, we find that
the Tribunal and two revenue authorities concurrently found that an
amount of Rs.30,00,000/- was found unaccounted, by way of cash
credits in favour of the five female members, who were close
relatives of the partners of the assessee, Firm. They could not
explain such credits, but, stated that one of the partners of the
Firm, who was also husband of one of the lady members, would be the
only person who can offer an explanation and such explanation shall
be binding to all.
7. We
find that the revenue authorities and the Tribunal, on the basis of
the evidence on record has come to a factual finding, which cannot be
stated to be perverse, especially, when Shri. Jagdish Somabhia Patel,
admitted that such amount pertained to unaccounted income of the
Firm. Further, such income was not disclosed in the previous year
also.
8. Considering
the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not
find any substantial question of law has arisen in this appeal. This
tax appeal is, therefore, DISMISSED.
(AKIL
KURESHI,J.)
(Ms.
SONIA GOKANI,J.)
Umesh/
Top