- (1.) FOLLOWING question of law has been referred for opinion of this Court by the Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the aggregate addition of Rs. 70,000 made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of cash credits under s. 68 of the IT Act, 1961 -
(2.) DURING the course of assessment for the asst. yr. 1987 -88, the AO found that Smt. Kamlesh Rani, partner introduced last several years and apart from being a partner of the assessee firm, she had income from interest and other sources, which were declared under the Amnesty Scheme. She had also deposited a sum Rs. 30,000 in her account, which she had received by way of gifts and shaguns at the time of her marriage in 1986. The AO did not accept the explanation of Smt. Kamlesh Rani and added the amount to the income of the firm. The CIT(A) confirmed both the additions. The Tribunal accepted the plea of the assessee that once Smt. Kamlesh Rani, partner accepted having made the deposits, no addition can be made in the income of the firm. Reliance was placed, inter alia, on CIT vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (1986) 52 CTR (SC) 138 : (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC), CIT vs. Ram Narain Goel (1997) 140 CTR (P&H) 148 : (1997) 224 ITR 180 (P&H), CIT vs. Jaiswal Motor Finance (1983) 37 CTR (All) 217 : (1983) 141 ITR 706 (All) and Narayandas Kedarnath vs. CIT (1952) 22 ITR 18 (Bom).
(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the Revenue and perused the record. It is well settled that whether explanation of the assessee about nature and source of the amounts credited in the Mills vs. CIT, IT Appeal No. 400 of 2006 [reported at (2007) 208 CTR (P&H) 453 - -Ed.], we observed as under : "In Oceanic Products Exporting Co. vs. CIT (2000) 158 CTR (Ker) 357 : (2000) 241 ITR 497 (Ker) and R.B. Mittal vs. CIT (2001) 165 CTR (AP) 366 : (2000) 246 ITR 283 (AP), the view taken is that the findings on cash credits are findings of fact. Under similar circumstances, this Court in ITC No. 1 of 1998 titled as Masu Am Makhan Lal vs. CIT, vide judgment much less a substantial question of law being the requirement under s. 260A of the Act, for entertainment of the appeal.";