Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Hiralal Shankarlal on 28 January, 1986
30. A Division Bench of this court in the case of CIT v. W. J. Walkar and Company [1979] 117 ITR 690, has taken a similar view. It was observed in that case (at page 693) :
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 36 (4.28 seconds)Atul Modi, New Delhi vs Acit, Circle- 29(1), New Delhi on 4 January, 2023
), CIT vs. WJ Walker & Co.
(1979) 117 ITR 690, 694 (Cal.)
Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Govind Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 17 October, 2000
13. The only dispute between the department and the assessee is regarding the genuineness of raising loan of Rs. 20,18,000 between 13-4-1973 and 6-3-1974 and repayment of the interest thereon. The ITO added Rs. 15 lacs to the assessee's income because of making cash payment of Rs. 15 lacs to M/s. Jethmull Bhojraj and because of the assessee's admission that he has raised a loan of Rs. 20,18,000 from M/s. Jethmull Bhojraj from the abovesaid party. Interest was credited and accordingly paid. The CIT(A) has discussed all the aspects of repayment of loan of Rs. 15 lacs and raising fresh loan of Rs. 20,18,000 in detail in his order. It would be a different point that he might not have discussed the facts as considered to have been discussed by the department but non-discussion of the facts according to the line of thinking of the department would not amount that the CIT(A) has arrived to a wrong conclusion. Confirmatory letter is disputed but no
grounds, are given by the ITO to reject the assessee's account books. In the absence of production of the account books of M/s. Jethmull Bhojraj, mere denial cannot take place of fact. Shri Sen has cited the judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. W.J. Walker & Co. [1979] 117 ITR 690. But this judgment is regarding the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. The department was required to prove in that case that the assessee was guilty of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income. The ratio of the said judgment does not apply here.
Income-Tax Officer vs Skyjet Aviation Pvt. Ltd. (And Vice ... on 19 July, 1999
In CIT v. W. J. Walker and Co. [1979] 117 ITR 690 (Cal) is again a decision of the Calcutta High Court. In that case, which relates to the assessment year 1964-65, the Income-tax Officer called upon the assessee to explain a cash credit of Rs. 50,000 found as a loan from a party and the assessee produced a confirmation letter from the party but the party's clerk deposed that the party had not given the loan. The officer also perused the income-tax returns of the party, and having not been satistied with the creditworthiness of the party, held that the loan was not genuine.
Income Tax Officer vs Skyjet Aviation (P) Ltd. on 19 July, 1999
In CIT v. W. J. Walker & Co. (1979) 117 ITR 690 is again a decision of the Calcutta High Court. In that case, which relates to assessment year 1964-65, the Income Tax Officer called upon the assessee to explain a cash credit of Rs. 50,000 found as a loan from a party and the assessee produced a confirmation letter from the party but the party's clerk deposed that the party had not given the loan. The officer also perused the income-tax returns of the party, and having satisfied with the creditworthiness of the party, held that the loan was not genuine.
Pragati Construction Co. vs Income-Tax Officer on 29 October, 1996
), CIT v. W.J. Walker & Co. [1979] 117 ITR 690 (Cal.
Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Govind Ram Agarwal on 17 October, 2000
13. The only dispute between the department and the assessee is regarding the genuineness of raising loan of Rs. 20,18,000 between 13-4-1973 and 6-3-1974 and repayment of the interest thereon. The ITO added Rs. 15 lacs to the assessee's income because of making cash payment of Rs. 15 lacs to M/s. Jethmull Bhojraj and because of the assessee's admission that he has raised a loan of Rs. 20,18,000 from M/s. Jethmull Bhojraj from the abovesaid party. Interest was credited and accordingly paid. The CIT(A) has discussed all the aspects of repayment of loan of Rs. 15 lacs and raising fresh loan of Rs. 20,18,000 in detail in his order. It would be a different point that he might not have discussed the facts as considered to have been discussed by the department but non-discussion of the facts according to the line of thinking of the department would not amount that the CIT(A) has arrived to a wrong conclusion. Confirmatory letter is disputed but no grounds are given by the ITO to reject the assessee's account books. In the absence of production of the account books of M/s. Jethmull Bhojraj, mere denial cannot take place of fact. Shri Sen has cited the judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. W.J. Walker & Co. [1979] 117 ITR 690. But this judgment is regarding the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. The department was required to prove in that case that the assessee was guilty of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income. The ratio of the said judgment does not apply here.
Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Dhanalaxmi Steel Re-Rolling Mills on 31 March, 1995
), and CIT v. W.J. Walker & Co. [1979] 117 ITR 690, at 694 (Cal.), it was held that mere filing of confirmatory letters does not discharge the onus that lies on the assessee. In the instant case, the facts show that the assessee has only established the identity of the creditor but miserably failed to establish the creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction. In this connection, the CIT(Appeals)'s observation that the assessee was asked to prove the source of the source is not correct as the assessee has failed to prove prima facie the transaction, which are appearing in its books of accounts which are clear from the facts stated above.
Seth Textiles vs Income Tax Officer on 6 March, 2002
10. The CIT(A), upholding the addition of Rs. 3,60,000, observed, inter alia, that when the cash credit entry appears in the assessee's books of accounts in an accounting year, the assessee has a legal obligation to explain the nature and source of such credits; that reliance in this regard was placed on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Sreelakha Banerjee v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC), that if the assessee offers an explanation about the cash credit, the IT Department can put the assessee to prove his explanation, and if the assessee fails to tender evidence, the AO is justified in rejecting the explanation and holding that the income is from an undisclosed source; that reliance was placed on Seth Kalekhan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), that in so far as the ingredients of the assessee's onus are concerned, it is necessary for the assessee to prove prima facie the transaction which results in cash credit in his books of accounts; that such proof includes proof of the identities of his creditors, the capacity of such creditors to advance the money and, lastly, the genuineness of the transactions; that mere filing of confirmatory letters does not discharge the onus that lies on the assessee; that reliance was placed on the Calcutta High Court's decision in Bharati P. Ltd. v. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 951 (Cal) and that the case of CIT v. W.J. Walkar & Co. (1979) 117 ITR 690 (Cal), was also relied on; that similarly, merely establishing the identity of the creditors is not enough [reliance placed on Shankar Industries v. CIT (1978) 114 ITR 689 (Cal) and C. Kant & Co. v. CIT (1980) 126 ITR 63 (Cal), both Calcutta High Court decisions]; that applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, he found that the assessee has simply filed confirmatory letters, which does not discharge its onus; that the AO started making enquiries by issuance of summons; that these summons were issued at the addresses supplied by the assessee; that the summons were returned by the postal authorities in almost all the cases except six; that this fact was brought to the notice of the assessee; that the assessee was requested to produce these parties; that nothing was done by it; that under these facts, it was impossible for the AO to verify the genuineness of these transactions; that the assessee made a point that since the loans were obtained through brokers, summons ought to have been issued to them; that he [CIT(A)] did not subscribe to this view; that it is the assessee's case that the loans were arranged by brokers; that if this was so, it was for the assessee to produce the brokers for examination; that this was not done by it; that the onus, therefore, does not shift on to the Department to issue summons to the brokers; and that as such, he was not inclined to agree with this stand of the assessee. Accordingly, he held that the assessee has filed to satisfactorily explain the nature, source and genuineness of the credits appearing in the accounts of the impugned parties; and that the AO was justified in making the impugned addition under s. 68 of the IT Act, 1961. The addition was confirmed. The addition of Rs. 40,932 on account of interest on the cash credits was also confirmed.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Kerala Road Lines Corporation on 28 October, 1985
14. See also CIT v. W.J. Walker & Co. [1979] 117 ITR 690 (Cal).