SRIMAN SAI SECURITIES INVESTMENT FINANCE LIMITED, JAGTIAL Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,KARIMNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The assessee, being unsuccessful before both the lower appellate fora, filed this appeal by raising the following substantial question of law:

(2.) At the hearing, Sri A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that it is the duty and obligation of the A.O. to hold necessary inquiry before coming to a conclusion on the nature of the amount. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Stellar Investment Limited, 1991 192 ITR 287 and also the order dated 20-07-2000 of the Supreme Court confirming the said decision. Learned counsel has also referred to and relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. LANCO Industries Limited, 2000 242 ITR 357.

(3.) Opposing the above submissions, Ms. M.Lalitha, learned counsel, representing Ms. K.Mamata, learned senior standing counsel appearing for Income Tax Department, has submitted that under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), the initial burden lies on the assessee to satisfy the A.O. that the amount found as cash credit is not chargeable to income tax as the income of the assessee of the previous year and that notwithstanding a number of opportunities presented to the assessee by the A.O., the former failed to avail such opportunities and produce any material whatsoever to satisfy the A.O. in that regard. She has also submitted that except furnishing the names of the persons who allegedly contributed to the share capital, not even their addressees have been furnished and no attempt whatsoever was made by the assessee to secure statements of the said persons. She has further submitted that the assessee has not filed any books of accounts or vouchers proving the receipt of money from the said 464 persons in support of his plea that the amount was collected from them towards share capital. She has relied on the judgments of Calcutta High Court in Hindusthan Tea Trading Company Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2003 263 ITR 289 and also the Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. ARL Infratech Limited,2017 394 ITR 383.