KAMAL MOT Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Tribunal. The following questions are raised in this appeal:

(2.) A search and seizure operation was carried out at the premises of the appellant on 23rd Dec., 1988. During the course of search, certain books of account and other documents were found and they were seized. The appellant filed the income -tax return on 2nd May, 1990, for the asst. yr. 1989 -90 declaring an income of Rs. 2,16,246. In response to this, notices were issued under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the IT Act, 1961.

(3.) THE cases relied by learned counsel for the appellant were not related with the search. In the case in hand, it is a case of search, where various documents were found during search and on the basis of those documents, the book results were rejected and G.P. rate was estimated. In addition to that the AO has also noticed 3 cash credits. The creditors are Mool Chand Jagetia Rs. 50,000, Urmila Jain Rs. 35,000 and Smt. Pramila Sharma Rs. 20,000. They filed confirmation certificates but they were not produced. The record reveals that Mool Chand Jagetia was not a man of means. The onus was on assessee to discharge that he was a man of means to allow the cash credit. There should be identification of the creditor and he should be a person of means. Therefore, we find no justification to interfere with addition on account of cash credit shown in the name of Mool Chand Jagetia as he did not have the capacity to advance Rs. 56,000.