Case Law Details
Baser Ahmed Sisodia Vs ITO (Supreme Court)
The issue under consideration is whether claim to purchase of goods by the assessee could be dealt with u/s 68 of the Income Tax as a cash credit, by placing burden upon the assessee to explain that the purchase price does not represent his income from the disclosed sources?
Supreme Court states that, earlier it must be observed that the appellant/assessee despite being given sufficient opportunity, failed to prove the correctness and genuineness of his claim in respect of purchases of marbles from unregistered dealers. However, it has now come on record that the appellant/assessee in penalty proceedings offered explanation and caused to produce affidavits and record statements of the concerned unregistered dealers and establish their credentials. That explanation has been accepted by the CIT(A) vide order dated 13.1.2011. After analysing the evidence so produced by the appellant/assessee, the appellate authority noted that the Officer had neither doubted the identity of those dealers nor any adverse comments were offered in reference to their version regarding sale of marble slabs by them. The appellate authority thus found that without purchases of marbles, there could be no sale and disclosure of closing stock in the trading account. In other words, the materials on record would clearly suggest that the concerned unregistered dealers had sold marble slabs on credit to the appellant/assessee, as claimed. As a consequence of this finding, the appellate authority concluded that there was neither any concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. The evidence fully supports the claim of the appellant/assessee. The appellate authority vide order dated 13.1.2011, had not only accepted the explanation offered by the appellant/assessee but also recorded a clear finding of fact that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income by the appellant/assessee. That now being the indisputable position, it must necessarily follow that the addition of amount cannot be justified, much less, maintained. Accordingly, this appeal ought to succeed on this count alone and it would be unnecessary for us to dilate on other questions/contentions urged by the parties as referred to in the earlier part of this judgment. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT
1. This appeal takes exception to the final judgment and order dated 21.8.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur (for short, “the High Court”) in Income Tax Appeal No. 69 of 2006, whereby the appellant’s appeal was dismissed and the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench (for short, ‘the ITAT’) came to be upheld.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
