Jalan Timbers v. CIT

223 ITR 11High Court1997#3216 most cited

What is Jalan Timbers v. CIT authority for?

Addition as cash credits is not justified if the assessee discloses cash credits, produces confirmatory letters from creditors, and the creditors have declared these amounts in their accepted income-tax returns.

37

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Jalan Timbers v. CIT · Section 68 · cash credits · confirmatory letters · creditors' income tax returns · addition not justified · unexplained cash credit · genuineness of transaction · creditworthiness of the creditor

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 131Section 147Section 250Section 115BBESection 133ASection 148

Issues it is cited on

section 115beproximate nexussection 91preponderance of probabilitycreditworthiness of the creditorviolation of natural justiceaddition under section 68source of sourcegenuineness of the transactionsection 148a(d)addition u/s 68unexplained cash credit

Judgments citing Jalan Timbers v. CIT

ACIT (Central), Ujjain vs. M/S. Ariba Foods (P) Ltd., Indore

ITA 736/IND/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Jan 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon'Ble & Hon'Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Ariba Foods Pvt. Acit (Central), Vs. Ltd, 101, Gold Star Building, Ujjain Opp. Treasure Island, 5767 M.G. Road, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aalca7223M Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Vyanktesh Plastics Acit (Central), Vs. & Packaging Pvt. Ltd, 75/7-B, Industrial Area, Ujjain Maxi Road, Ujjain (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaacv6547J Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…t Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 0723 (Bom) x) CIT vs. Taj Borewell (2007) 291 ITR 0232 (Mad.) xi) Addl. CIT vs. Bahri Brothers (P) Ltd. (1985) 154 ITR 0244 (Pat) xii) CIT vs. Hanuman Agarwal (1985) 151 ITR 150 (Pat) xiii) Jalan Timbers vs. CIT (1997) 223 ITR 11 (Gau) xiv) CIT vs. Dalmia Resorts International (2007) 290 ITR 508 (Del) xv) Lalitha Jewellery Mart P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 399 ITR 0425 (Mad) xvi) CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217 (Raj) xvii) CIT vs. Shri E.S. Jose (2014) 220 Taxman 0032 (Ker) xviii) CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. & Ors. (2014) 361 ITR 0220 (Del) xix) Mr. Gaura…

The ACIT (Central), Ujjain vs. M/S. Famous Vanijya (P) Ltd., Ujjain

ITA 773/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon'Ble & Hon'Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Ariba Foods Pvt. Acit (Central), Vs. Ltd, 101, Gold Star Building, Ujjain Opp. Treasure Island, 5767 M.G. Road, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aalca7223M Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Vyanktesh Plastics Acit (Central), Vs. & Packaging Pvt. Ltd, 75/7-B, Industrial Area, Ujjain Maxi Road, Ujjain (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaacv6547J Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…t Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 0723 (Bom) x) CIT vs. Taj Borewell (2007) 291 ITR 0232 (Mad.) xi) Addl. CIT vs. Bahri Brothers (P) Ltd. (1985) 154 ITR 0244 (Pat) xii) CIT vs. Hanuman Agarwal (1985) 151 ITR 150 (Pat) xiii) Jalan Timbers vs. CIT (1997) 223 ITR 11 (Gau) xiv) CIT vs. Dalmia Resorts International (2007) 290 ITR 508 (Del) xv) Lalitha Jewellery Mart P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 399 ITR 0425 (Mad) xvi) CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217 (Raj) xvii) CIT vs. Shri E.S. Jose (2014) 220 Taxman 0032 (Ker) xviii) CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. & Ors. (2014) 361 ITR 0220 (Del) xix) Mr. Gaura…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jay Shiva Earthmovers & Construction Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3995/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 3995/Del/2010 Ay: 2006-07 Ito, Ward 4(2), Vs. Jay Shiva Earthmovers & Construction Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 413A, Bu-60, Sfs Flats, Outer C.R. Building, Ring Road, Pitampura, I.P. Estate, Delhi – 85 New Delhi (Pan: Aabcj1414D) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Satyajeet Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Gupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…d. v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 688, Prakash Textile Agency vs. CIT (1980) 121 ITR 890 & CIT vs. Korlay Trading Company Ltd. (1999) 232 ITR 820, by Orissa High Court in CIT Vs. B.C. Mohanty (1995) 212 ITR 199 and by Gauhati High Court in lalan Timbers Vs. CIT (1997) 223 ITR 11 (Gau.).In view of above, the entire burden is upon the assessee and the assessee has to prove the following three conditions:- 4 (i) identity of the creditor; (ii) capacity of such creditor to ,advance money & (iii) genuineness of the transaction. If all the aforesaid three conditions are proved the burden shifts on the Revenue to prove that t…

Prayag Polytech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6015/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 127(1)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…. Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 1103 of 2015, dated 28.02.2018 where a similar issue has come up. 10.3 The Ld. AR further placed reliance on following judgments: (i) Addl. CIT Bihar vs Hanuman Agarwal (1985) 151 ITR 150 (Patna High Court) (ii) Jalan Timber vs CIT (1997) 223 ITR 11 (Gauhati H.C.) (iii) Neeru Devi Kothari vs ITO (2001) 116 Taxman 224 (Jodhpur) (iv) Sarogi Credit Corporation vs CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Patna HC) (v) Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT [2004] 264 ITR 254(Gau) (vi) S. Hastimal vs CIT 49 ITR 272 (vii) CIT vs PithampurConzima (P) Ltd. (2000) 244 ITR 442 (MP High Court (viii) TolaramDaga's case [1966] 59 ITR…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi vs. Prayag Polytech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5970/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 127(1)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…. Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 1103 of 2015, dated 28.02.2018 where a similar issue has come up. 10.3 The Ld. AR further placed reliance on following judgments: (i) Addl. CIT Bihar vs Hanuman Agarwal (1985) 151 ITR 150 (Patna High Court) (ii) Jalan Timber vs CIT (1997) 223 ITR 11 (Gauhati H.C.) (iii) Neeru Devi Kothari vs ITO (2001) 116 Taxman 224 (Jodhpur) (iv) Sarogi Credit Corporation vs CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Patna HC) (v) Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT [2004] 264 ITR 254(Gau) (vi) S. Hastimal vs CIT 49 ITR 272 (vii) CIT vs PithampurConzima (P) Ltd. (2000) 244 ITR 442 (MP High Court (viii) TolaramDaga's case [1966] 59 ITR…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. M/S. Happy Home Corporation, Surat

ITA 715/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Smita Nair, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 80I

…person who has shown total income of Rs. 23,37,706/- and paid taxes of Rs. 5,68,882/- in AY 2012-13 was not a bona- fide assessee and not having creditworthiness to advance loan to the assessee. Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in the case of Jalan Timber Vs-. CIT 223 ITR 11 has held that if assessee and creditors both have shown impugned amount in their income tax return, no addition u/s. 68 can be made if the returns of creditors have been accepted by ITO. As discussed above, the case of creditor has been accepted by the department. In view of the above, learned AO was not justified to raise doubts about the creditw…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. M/S. Happy Home Corporation, Surat

ITA 1991/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Smita Nair, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 80I

…person who has shown total income of Rs. 23,37,706/- and paid taxes of Rs. 5,68,882/- in AY 2012-13 was not a bona- fide assessee and not having creditworthiness to advance loan to the assessee. Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in the case of Jalan Timber Vs-. CIT 223 ITR 11 has held that if assessee and creditors both have shown impugned amount in their income tax return, no addition u/s. 68 can be made if the returns of creditors have been accepted by ITO. As discussed above, the case of creditor has been accepted by the department. In view of the above, learned AO was not justified to raise doubts about the creditw…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sumit Mittal, New Delhi

ITA 6123/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv., Sh. AshishFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 276CSection 68

…ma facie not only the identity of the creditor but also the genuineness of the transaction and also the capacity of the creditor and as such the assessee completely discharged its initial onus under Section 68 of the LT. Act 1961. 2. Jalan Timber vs CIT(1997) 223 ITR 11 (Gauhati H.C.) In the instant case, the amounts were shown in the income tax return of the assessee. Besides, the creditor had also shown in the return about giving of the loan to the assessee. Strangely, the Income Tax Officer while making the assessment in respect of the three creditors above named accepted the returns. This itself will go…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sumit Mittal, New Delhi

ITA 6122/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv., Sh. AshishFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 276CSection 68

…ma facie not only the identity of the creditor but also the genuineness of the transaction and also the capacity of the creditor and as such the assessee completely discharged its initial onus under Section 68 of the LT. Act 1961. 2. Jalan Timber vs CIT(1997) 223 ITR 11 (Gauhati H.C.) In the instant case, the amounts were shown in the income tax return of the assessee. Besides, the creditor had also shown in the return about giving of the loan to the assessee. Strangely, the Income Tax Officer while making the assessment in respect of the three creditors above named accepted the returns. This itself will go…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Suncity Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5740/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 68

…Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268 (Del) " CIT, Orissa vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) " Sumati Dayal vs. CIT-Bangalore [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) " CIT vs. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd. 307 ITR 334 (Delhi) " Jalan Timber vs. CIT 223 ITR 11 (Gau) 23 Suncity Projects Pvt. Ltd. " Addl. CIT Bihar vs. Hanuman Prasad Aggarwal 151 ITR 151 (Pat) " CIT vs. Kannan Kunhi 87 ITR 395 " CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. 307 ITR 334 " CIT vs. Devine Leasing and Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268 14. It was further submitted as under: “..............Your honour in this regard it is also to mention th…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Abhinav Steels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4354/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2009-10] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. M/S Abhinav Steels Pvt. Ltd Circle -1(1) 401, Mahaveer Ji Complex New Delhi Lsc, Rishab Jain Vihar New Delhi Pan : Aabca 3974 H [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2017 Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Adv Shri Ashish Goel, Ca Revenue By : Shri Surendrapal, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surendrapal, Sr. DR
Section 68

…vs. Real Time Marketing (P) Ltd. 306 ITR 35 (Del.) iii. Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Diamond Products Ltd.2008 (9) TMI 943 - DELHI HIGH COURT iv. Addl. CIT Bihar vs Hanuman Agarwal (1985) 151 ITR 151 (Patna High Court) v. Jalan Timber vs CIT (1997) 223 ITR 11 (Gauhati H.C.) 11. It was submitted that in view of the above facts the AO was not justified in making sweeping observations such as fabricated and prepared documents as a made-up affair. It was further submitted that the AO was not justified in drawing adverse inference against the assessee on account of non-appearance of the companies of source…

S.Nageswari, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 399/CHNY/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri Supriyopal, JCITFor Respondent: 12.06.2017
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

…e had simply followed the order of the Ld.AO. This action of the Ld.CIT(A) is also not justifiable. At this juncture I am reminded of the decision of the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court & Calcutta High Court discussed herein below: 1. Jalan Timbers v. CIT [1997] 223 ITR 11 (Gau.) Where, in respect of certain cash credits, the assessee had not only disclosed them in his return of income but also produced confirmatory letters from the creditors, and the creditors had also declared the amounts in their income-tax returns which were accepted by the ITO, addition made as cash credits by ignoring the aforesaid facts would…

Smt. Gialso Devi, Panipat vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 814/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 814/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Smt. Gialso Devi, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 876, Sector-11, Ward-3, Huda, Panipat Panipat (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahopd3907A Assessee By : Sh. Rakesh Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Bedobani Chaudhari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.12.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A), Karnal.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Bedobani Chaudhari, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

…CIT Vs W.J. Klarler & Co. (1979) 117 ITR 690 (Cal) " CIT Vs United Commercial and Ind. Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 596 (Cal) " Precision Finance Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal) " Nizam Wood Agency Vs ICT (1992) 193 ITR 318 (All) " Jalan Timber Vs CIT (1997) 223 ITR 11 " CIT Vs Karley Traders Co. (1998) 232 ITR 820 (Cal) " Shanker Ind. Vs CIT (1978) 114 ITR 689 (Cal) " C. Kant & Co. Vs CIT (198)) 126 ITR 63 (Cal) " Parkash Textile Agency Vs ICT (1980) 121 ITR 890 (Cal) " Oriental Wire Ind. (1981) 131 ITR 688 (Cal) " CIT Vs United Commercials & Ind. Co. (1991) 187 ITR 597 (Cal) " M. A. Uneer Kutly Vs CIT (1992) 1…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Lifestyle Texworks Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 1943/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Lifestyle Texworks Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Circle-4(1), Room No. 407, 4Th Apartment 530, Tower Iii, Mount Floor, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Kailash, East Of Kailash, New Delhi New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaacl7069F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 16.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 21/02/2011 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Vii, New Delhi Raising Following Grounds; “01. The Order Of The Learned Cit (Appeals) Is Erroneous & Contrary To Facts & Law. 02. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.52,29,408/- Made U/S 68 Of The Act, Being The Unconfirmed Unsecured Loan. 2.1 The Ld. Cit (A) Has Ignored The Findings Recorded By The Ao & The Fact That The Assessee Did Not Discharge The Onus Of Proving The Creditworthiness Of The Creditors & Genuineness Of The Transactions. 03. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit (Appeals) Has Erred I N Deleting The Addition Of Rs.12,62,503/- Made On Account Of Disallowance Excessive Expenditure. 3.1. The Ld. Cit (A) Ignored The Finding Recorded By The Ao & The Fact That The Assessee Did Not File Required Evidences To Substantiate Its Claim.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

…89 (Cal.); C. Kant & Company v. CIT (1980) 126 ITR 63 (Cal.); Prakash Textile Agency vs. CIT (1980) 121 ITR 890 (Cal.); Oriental Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (1981) 131 ITR 688; CIT Vs. B.C. Mohanty (1995) 212 ITR 199 (Ori.); Jalan Timbers Vs. CIT (1997) 223 ITR 11 (Gau.) & CIT vs. Korlay Trading Company Ltd. (1999) 232 ITR 820 If all the aforesaid three conditions are proved the burden shifts on the Revenue to prove that the amount belonged to the assessee. [CIT vs. United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P) Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 596 (Cal.); M.A. Unneeri Kutty vs. CIT (1992)198 ITR 147 (Ker.); CIT Vs. Precision F…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(1), Mumbai vs. Ramakant Gaggar, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1286/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dcit, Cc-8(1), Shri Ramakant Gaggar, Room No.656, 6Th Floor, 302, Gaurav Apart. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Gokuldham, Vs. M.K. Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400063 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Abkpg9952C

Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘एक-सद"य’ "यायपीठ,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, Assessment Year: 2005-06 DCIT, CC-8(1), Shri Ramakant Gaggar, Room No.656, 6th Floor, 302, Gaurav Apart. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Gokuldham, Vs. M.K. Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400063 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.ABKPG9952C राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri Om Prakash Meena-DR None "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by 24/06/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing 24/06/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date of Orde…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hari Ram Chhagan Lal & Party

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 1255 / 2008HC Delhi02 Feb 2010
For Appellant: Ms P. L. BansalFor Respondent: Mr Prakul Khurana

…e, it was clearly established that the loan was genuine and that the creditworthiness also stood established by the other documents on record. 6. As observed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT v. Dalmia Resorts International: (2007) 290 ITR 508 (Delhi), the questions whether the lender was genuine, had resources and the capacity to lend money and had actually lent the money shown to have been borrowed by the assessee, are all pure questions of fact. As in that case, in the present case also, concurrent findings had been returned on these factual questions by the Commissioner of In…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hari Ram Chhagan Lal & Party

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/1255/2008HC Delhi02 Feb 2010
For Appellant: Ms P. L. BansalFor Respondent: Mr Prakul Khurana

…e, it was clearly established that the loan was genuine and that the creditworthiness also stood established by the other documents on record. 6. As observed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT v. Dalmia Resorts International: (2007) 290 ITR 508 (Delhi), the questions whether the lender was genuine, had resources and the capacity to lend money and had actually lent the money shown to have been borrowed by the assessee, are all pure questions of fact. As in that case, in the present case also, concurrent findings had been returned on these factual questions by the Commissioner of In…