BHARTESH JAIN Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR the asst. yr. 1994 -95, the appellant -assessee claimed to have borrowed two loans, one for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 from M/s Elite Stock Management (P) Ltd. and the other for a sum of Rs. 19,00,000 from M/s Sujata Securities (P) Ltd. The AO, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence assembled in the course of the assessment proceedings, came to the conclusion that the genuineness of both the loan transactions had not been established by the assessee. The AO was of the view that the amounts allegedly borrowed by way of loans were actually assessee's own money which was pumped into his business in the garb of loans. The said amounts were, therefore, added back to the taxable income of the assessee in terms of s. 68 of the IT Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant - assessee appealed to the CIT(A) who affirmed the view taken by the AO and held that the genuineness of the two loan transactions had indeed not been proved satisfactorily. In a further appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal, the said view has been affirmed. The Tribunal has, while dealing with the loan transaction of a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 allegedly borrowed from M/s ESMPL, observed that the alleged creditor had itself denied having given any loan to the appellant. The loan transaction had thus not been proved to be genuine according to the Tribunal. The Tribunal observed :

(2.) INSOFAR as the second loan transaction with M/s SSPL was concerned, the Tribunal similarly held that the genuineness of the said transaction had also not been established and that the assessee's undisclosed money had in fact got routed through the bank account of M/s SSPL, the Tribunal in that regard observed :

(3.) MR . Manjani, counsel appearing for the appellant, argued that the findings recorded by the Tribunal in regard to both the loan transactions were perverse inasmuch as the same were unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. We regret our inability to accept that submission. As noticed earlier, the IT authorities and the Tribunal have concurrently come to the conclusion that the loan transactions relied upon by the appellant to explain the credit entries in his account books had not been satisfactorily established and the burden that lay heavily upon him under s. 68 of the Act was not discharged. The authorities have, while arriving at the said conclusion, placed reliance upon the available material which comprised statements of Sh. Jaswinder Singh, manager accounts, of one of the alleged creditors and Sh. Madhup Jain, director of the other. The authorities have, on a proper appreciation of the said evidence and the fact that the alleged loan transactions were not recorded in the books of account of the creditors, concluded that the genuineness of the loan transactions had not been established. In the light of the said material which the authorities below have appreciated and relied upon in support of their conclusion, it is difficult to see how the finding regarding the genuineness of the loan transactions can be described as perverse. It is also not possible in the light of the said evidence to hold that the finding regarding the non -genuineness of the transactions was so irrational that no reasonable or prudent person could have arrived at the same.