- (1.) THIS appeal is filed against the order of the Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, dt. 8th Nov., 2002. The following substantial questions of law were framed while admitting the appeal: 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, once the assessee has established the identity of the creditors in whose names cash credit is found in the books of account namely, Smt. Ramkanwari Devi, Smt. Santosh Sharma, Shri Dinesh Sharma and Atul Kumar Patel and the said creditors have admitted having advanced the aforesaid sum to the appellant assessee and the said creditors have also been assessed to income -tax, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee has failed to discharge his onus under Section 68 of the IT Act, 1961?
(2.) WHETHER in the facts and circumstances of the case the rejection of explanation furnished by the appellant, explaining the cash credits of persons named in question No. 1, for the reasons are perverse by ignoring the objective material available to the assessee? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the additions made by the AO, on account of the aforesaid cash credits while relying upon the statement of persons examined at the back of appellant and without giving him any opportunity to cross -examine them and sustained by the Tribunal, are justified in law? 2. The substratum of the facts appear from the questions. If we go into details which relates to additions made in the income returned by the assessee for asst. yr. 1993 -94 in respect of cash credits found in the names of Smt. Ramkanwari Devi, Smt. Santosh Sharma, Sh. Dinesh Sharma and Sh. Atul Kumar Patel totalling Rs. 3,15,000, the assessee had filed affidavits from all the four creditors before the AO. In the affidavits the deponents have owned deposits made by them. All the depositors are assessed to tax. Thus, existence of depositors as real persons is not in dispute. Each one has owned to have deposited the respective sums found in the book of the assessee firm and each one is an assessee are not the facts in dispute. Sh. Dinesh Agarwal and Sh. Atul Paliwal were examined on being produced before the AO in which also they have admitted that they advanced amount as per the account stated in the books of the assessee. Smt. Ram Kanwari and Smt. Santosh Sharma could not be produced by the assessee but as per the findings of the AO he has made his own enquiries by referring to certain parts of the statement concerning the sources from where the respective creditors have acquired the money which they claimed to have deposited with the assessee respectively, and found that the creditors have not been able to explain the sources where from each of them had acquired the amount deposited with the assessee. On the failure of the depositor to explain sources of his/her investment with assessee, the explanation furnished by the assessee about the deposits received from all the four persons were rejected and in terms of Section 68 of IT Act of 1961 the amount stated to have been received from the aforesaid four persons were added as assessee's income from undisclosed sources. These additions were affirmed successively by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal.
(3.) IT is pointed out by the assessee that even from the statements recorded by the two ladies in the absence of the assessee at his back (which) are taken into account, Smt. Ramkanwari has stated that main source of her income is annual sale of fodder of Rs. 2.5 lacs to 3 lacs and she has stated that her accounts are kept by her husband and he only knows about all her financial matters and that she is lending money for last four to five years and earning interest thereon. She admitted to have lent Rs. 60,000 to some Merta party also, details of which she could not divulge because her husband looks after her money matters. However, while alluding the statement of Smt. Ramkanwari, all these matters have not at all been noticed but only the statement out of context have been noticed where she has pleaded ignorance about the details.;