M/S.orchid Investments v. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Inv.),Circle 21(1), Mumbai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORIGINAL SIDE INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 575 OF 2003 M/s.Orchid Investmentsvs.Asst. Commissioner of Income tax(Inv.),Circle 21(1), Mumbai. Appellant Respondent Mr.K. Gopal for the appellant. P.C. CORAM: R. M. LODHA &J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. DATED: 25th October 2004 in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd., 159 ITR 78 relied upon by him. 2. The Tribunal in its order observed thus: ."When the addresses given by the assesseewere not found to be correct, in view ofthe fact that the summons issued byR.P.A.D. were returned unserved by thepostal authorities, it is the duty of theassessee to furnish correct addresses.Similarly, when the A.O. has examinedMr.D.S.Nagmode and found that he is a manof limited means and could not haveadvanced an amount of Rs.10,000/- to ShriKawale, the burden shifts on to theassessee to prove the credit-worthinessof Shri Nagmode. However, the assesseedid not choose to discharge the burdenplaced upon it and merely stated that theA.O. has no jurisdiction to verify thecreditor’s creditor. In our consideredopinion, the claim of the assessee is contrary to the mandate of sec. 68 ofthe Act. Under these circumstances, theaddition made by the A.O. deserves to beupheld."3. The consideration of the matter by the Tribunal isconcluded on facts.4. No substantial question of law arises.5. Appeal is dismissed in limine.(R.M. LODHA,J.)(J.P. DEVADHAR,J.)