Ita/59/1998 Of M.c. Patel (Huf) v. The Comm. Of Income-Tax
High Court
08 Aug 2005 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Ita/59/1998 Of M.c. Patel (Huf) v. The Comm. Of Income-Tax
Date of order
08 Aug 2005
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Ita/59/1998 Of M.c. Patel (Huf) v. The Comm. Of Income-Tax, the High Court (2005) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.59 OF 1998
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.59 OF 1998
Shri M.C.Patel (HUF) ...Appliants.
V/s.
The Commissioner of Income-tax ...Respondents.
Mrs. V.B.Patel for the Applicants.
Dr.P.Daniel with Mr.G.Hariharan for the
Respondent.
CORAM: S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
J.H.BHATIA, JJ.
DATE : 8th August, 2005.
P.C.:
P.C.:
1. Heard the learned counsel for the Applicant
and the learned counsel for the Respondent. In the
above Application, reference is sought with regard to
the following two substantial questions of law under
section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act.
i)"Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case and in law,
the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in
holding that the assessee has not
discharged the primary onus of
proving the identity and capacity of
the creditors as well as genuineness
of the transaction ?
: 2 :
ii)"Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case and in law,
the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in
confirming the addition of
Rs.9,01,000/- being the loans
received during the year as
unexplained cash credit under section
68 of the Income Tax Act ?
2. We have perused the Tribunal’s order dated
1st May, 1997 wherein the Tribunal has referred to the
earlier order of the Tribunal and has categorically
observed that after careful consideration the Tribunal
had come to a conclusion that nowhere onus to prove
identity and capacity of creditors as well as
genuineness of the transaction which was primarily on
the assessee was discharged by them. In the facts and
circumstances of the case and based on the records
available it was clear that assessee had not
discharged its primary onus of proving. Bank
passbooks were not even produced and unless and until
the said burden of proof is discharged there is no
question by the Department having the onus to prove
: 3 :
the same. The Tribunal has also observed that the
Applicant assessee could have requested for summoning
the creditors. Under these circumstances, the above
questions of law purely based on the findings of the
facts and we are in agreement with the reasoning of
the Tribunal. The Assessee has failed to discharge
its primary onus to prove the identity and capacity of
the creditors. We do not find any substance in the
above Application. The Application stands dismissed.
(S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(J.H.BHATIA, J.)
(J.H.BHATIA, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.