INCOME-TAX OFFICER Vs. DWARKA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are cross -appeals filed by the assessee as well as by the Revenue. We shall first take up assessees appeal.

(2.) GROUND Nos. 2 and 3 state that the Appellate Commissioner (A/C) erred in confirming the deposit by Smt. Girja Devi of a sum of Rs. 18,000 treating it as assessees income and also disallowing the interest amount of Rs. 1,828 paid to that lady on her loan account.

(3.) WE have heard both sides, and also perused the relevant documents placed by the assessees counsel in his paperbook. In our view, though there was no confirmatory letter from the assessee, the assessee tried to explain how that lady came into possession of Rs. 18,000 which was by loans obtained from two different parties who were income -tax assessees and who filed explanation in support of the explanation given by the assessee. The loans by the two persons to the lady Smt. Girja Devi were through account payee cheques and the lady Smt. Girja Devi also gave loans to the assessee by account payee cheques. In our view it can be safely said that the assessee discharged the onus which lay on him under s. 68 of the Act. The Honble Patna High Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Bahri Bros. (P) Ltd. : [1985]154ITR244(Patna) have laid down that if the loan transaction is routed through bank channels, i.e., the account payee cheque then it is sufficient discharge of the onus which lay on the assessee. Respectfully following the principle laid down therein by the Honble Patna High Court, we hold that the burden has been discharged by the assessee and direct deletion of the sum of Rs. 18,000 as well as the sum of Rs. 1,828 being interest thereon.