- (1.) The present appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act 1961 (herein after referred to as the Act.) against the order dated 29.07.2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Allahabad has been admitted vide order dated 05.03.2003 on the following two substantial question of law, which is said to be involved in the appeal: 1. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in confirming the additions Under Section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 overlooking the fact that the explanation of the assessee regarding four deposits was accepted in part? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the additions under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 despite the identity of its creditors and sources and nature of the credit entries was fully explained by the assessee? Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the instant appeal are as follows: The appellant is a builder and colonizer. For the assessment year 1988-89, the appellant filed its return of income. The return was processed and during the course of investigation it was found that the appellant had made entries of deposit of Rs. 88,000/- in the name of Sri Nazeer Ahmad, Rs. 5,000/- in the name of Smt. Urmila Devi, Rs. 15,000/- in the name of Sri Jamal Ahmad and Rs. 50,000/- in the name of Sri Mohd. Ashfaque.
(2.) The Assessing Officer asked the appellant to prove the nature and source of the deposits as required under Section 68 of the Act. After considering the material and evidence on record, the Assessing Officer accepted the deposits made by Smt. Urmila Devi and Sri Mohd. Ashfaque. In respect of remaining two deposits of Rs. 88,000/- made by Sri Nazeer Ahmad and Rs. 15,000/- made by Sri Jamal Ahmad, the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that so far as Sri Nazeer Ahmad is concerned, the appellant has failed to establish that he had the capacity to make deposit of Rs. 88,000/-. In respect of deposit of Rs. 15,000/- made by Sri Jamal Ahmad for the reasons best known the said creditor did not appear before the Assessing Officer in spite of summon having been sent on the address given by the appellant nor the appellant took care to produce him before the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the two deposits of Rs. 88,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- totalling Rs. 1,03,000/- was added as income from unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. The appeal preferred by the appellant both before the C.I.T.(A) and also before the Tribunal failed.
(3.) We have heard Sri Shakeel Ahmad learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri A. N. Mahajan learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue.;