UNNEERI KUTTY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein is an assessee to income-tax. This petition is filed under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following four questions of law, formulated in paragraph 15 of the original petition, for the decision of this court :

(2.) THE respondent is the Revenue. We are concerned with the assessment year 1972-73 for which the accounting period ended on March 31, 1972. THE proceedings had a chequered history. THE minimal facts to understand the scope of the present controversy are as follows :

(3.) HAVING considered the rival pleas advanced before us, we are satisfied that the plea of the assessee should fail. The following facts stand out prominently. The assessee had business connections with Shri Kunhaimu Haji, who advanced a sum of Rs. 2,06,456 in different names on a single day. The credits appeared in the books of account of the assessee. Smt. Pathukutty Umma is the wife of Shri Kunhaimu Haji and Shri Abdukutty is the son of Shri Kunhaimu Haji. The fact that the assessee and Shri Kunhaimu Haji had business transactions and that the two credits appeared in the names of near relations of Shri Haji are admitted. After considering the explanation offered by the assessee, the Appellate Tribunal held that Smt. Pathukutty Umma was putting forward different pleas regarding the availability of funds and so, what she stated in her confirmatory letter does not appear to be reliable, considered especially in the light of the fact that she had only three acres of land and the amount of Rs. 50,000 withdrawn by her from Vijaya Bank appears to be a manipulation. The Appellate Tribunal found that Smt. Pathukutty Umma does not have any creditworthiness and there was every possibility that the story regarding the advance of loan was cooked up by the assessee with the help of Shri Kunhaimu Haji, husband of the creditor. The Appellate Tribunal found that the assessee had established only the identity of the creditor but the creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transactions have not been proved. The Appellate Tribunal further found that the credit in the name of Shri Abdukutty stands on the same footing as that of Smt. Pathukutty Umma and, in the light of the finding that the creditworthiness of the creditors have not been proved, the addition of Rs. 75,000 and Rs. 25,000 sustained by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) did not merit any interference in appeal.