THE SHIV RICE AND GENERAL MILLS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/400/2006HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01075118200624 October 2006Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the assessee had failed to discharge the burden of proving the genuineness of the cash credit entries. The court found that the statements of creditors, even if considered, did not advance the assessee's case further, as they contained information already dealt with by the authorities. The court noted that merely showing repayment did not prove the genuineness of the transaction. The financial capacity of creditors, such as those running small shops or being laborers, to advance substantial amounts without interest was questioned. The court found the entire evidence did not inspire confidence. The judgments relied upon by the assessee were interpreted to reinforce the principle that identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction must be proved, which the assessee failed to do. The court also referred to judgments holding that findings on cash credits are findings of fact, and re-appraisal of evidence is not within the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 260A. Therefore, the court found no substantial question of law arising and dismissed the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, The Shiv Rice & General Mills, filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging an order dated January 13, 2006, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar Bench. The ITAT's order pertained to assessment year 1998-99. During assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) found cash credits totaling Rs. 2,57,500/- in the assessee's books of account from 17 individuals. The AO treated these as income not genuinely explained and made additions. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted additions of Rs. 52,000/- but confirmed the addition of the remaining Rs. 2,05,500/-. The ITAT examined each transaction, deleting some additions and confirming others where the genuineness of the advance could not be proved due to the creditors' financial incapacity.

What were the issues?

The High Court had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the income tax authorities' order treating cash credits as the assessee's income was perverse, arbitrary, and based on mere assumptions, especially when creditors provided statements and affidavits confirming advances and repayments, and some advances were believed by the authorities? 2. Whether additions could be made for cash creditors without rejecting the assessee's account books? 3. Whether the impugned orders were ultra vires of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act? 4. Whether the assessee had discharged the burden of proving the creditworthiness of the amounts in question? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the authorities failed to consider statements made by creditors, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The assessee relied on judgments in Orient Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, Chhabildas Tribhuv Andas Shah vs. CIT, Sarogi Credit Corporation vs. CIT, Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT, and CIT vs. Metachem Industries. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue contended that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proving the genuineness of the cash credits, citing the financial incapacity of several creditors who were laborers, milk vendors, or low-paid employees, and who advanced money without interest.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

**** I.T.A. No.400 of 2006 Date of Decision:24.10.06 The Shiv Rice & General Mills, Jaitu through CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:- Shri Ram Lal Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. **** RAJESH BINDAL, J. The assessee has approached this Court by filing the present appeal raising the following substantial questions of law arising out of order dated 13.1.2006 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (for short, `the Tribunal') in I.T.A. No.468(ASR) 2001 for the assessment year 1998-99:- “(i)Whether the order of the income tax authorities treating the cash credits in question as the income of the assessee suffer from perversity and is arbitrary and is based upon mere assumptions and presumptions and surmises and conjectures and more so when the creditors themselves have been produce

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →