Hassanand Thakurdas & Co v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai City Xiii

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1381 OF 2000 Hassanand Thakurdas & Co. ).. Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai City XIII).. RespondentsMr P.P Prabhu for the Appellant. CORAM:SWATANTER KUMAR, C. J. & A. P. DESHPANDE, J.DATE:23RD JULY 2008. P.C. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitsthat the affidavit had been filed by the employee and the Accountantand that had completely discharged the onus placed upon theassessee. The AO had granted ample opportunity, but the assesseefailed to avail the same. Concurrent findings of fact have beenrecorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and theIncome-tax Appellate Tribunal which is clear from the observationsmade as under :- “.....Before the CIT (A) the assessee brought outthe story of the mischievous employee. The CIT (A),after the receipt of the remand report came to the conclusion that the contention of the assessee is notacceptable. The findings of the CIT (A) are correct.Besides these we find that even if we assume that theemployee's story may be given credence, still, theburden of proving the nature of cash credits is on theassessee as the facts are within his knowledge.Despite several opportunities, no explanation at allwas offered, the story of mischievous employee wasnot taken as a defence before the AO and, in materialterms, it was taken before the CIT (A). Under thesecircumstances, we are of the view that the addition isproper. We accordingly uphold the order of the CIT(A).” 2. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that no question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises in thepresent case. Dismissed. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE A. P. DESHPANDE, J.