1990 PLP 74 (PTD)

K. S. PARIPOORNAN, J.‑‑The petitioner is a firm. It is an assessee to Income‑tax. It is engaged in business as commission agents and wholesale dealers in tea. We are concerned with the assessment year 1979‑

80. More than one return was filed by the petitioner for the assessment year. The Income‑tax Officer found huge cash credits in the names of 77 parties. He further found that the petitioner/assessee failed to give correct and complete addresses of the said persons and most of the credits were not genuine. The assessments were made for two different periods April 1,1978,to September 15, 1978, and September 16, 1978, to March 31, 1979, in view of the retirement of a partner. The peak credit was found to be Rs. 6,68,

268. On this basis, additions were made. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) sustained the additions in the sums of Rs. 5,00,000‑‑Rs. 2,00,000 was treated as income for the first period and Rs. 3,00,000 was treated as income for the second period. The total sum of Rs. 5,00,000 replaced the addition of Rs. 4,00,287 for the first period and Rs. 2,76,028 for the second period added as unexplained cash credits of the petitioner/assessee under "other sources" made by the Income‑tax Officer. The Revenue as well as the petitioner/assessee filed appeals before the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal. Both the appeals were disposed of by a common order dated March 30, 1985, by the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal held that the total addition of Rs. 5,00,000‑‑Rs. 2,00,000 for the first period and Rs. 3,00,000 for the second period‑ sustained by the Commissioner of Income‑tax (Appeals) does not merit any interference. Similarly, the Appellate Tribunal held that the order of the Commissioner of Income‑tax (Appeals) limiting the additions to the total sum of Rs. 5,00,000 did not require any interference. The Appellate Tribunal held that the correct and complete addresses of the 77 parties were not available in the books of account. Even though the Income‑tax Officer requested the assessee for details on a number of occasions, it was not furnished. After adverting to the various facts and circumstances, the Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee has not proved the genuineness of the transactions and credits and so it is evident that the assessee did not make any effort to prove that it really received the amounts from the parties and sold goods to them by filing confirmation letters and by producing them for examination before the authorities. In the absence of any proof adduced by the assessee in respect of the genuineness of both the receipt of money and sale of tea to the parties, the Appellate Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner of Income‑tax (Appeals) was justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 5,00,000 for the two periods. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated March 30, 1985, the petitioner/assessee filed an application under section 256(1) of Income‑tax Act praying that the Appellate Tribunal may be pleased to refer six questions of law formulated in para 7 of the original petition for the decision of this Court. By order dated August 29, 1986, the said application was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal. Thereafter, the assessee has filed this original petition under section 25(1(2) of the Act. We heard counsel for the petitioner/assessee as also counsel for the Revenue. The sole question that arose for consideration before the Appellate Tribunal in the appeal filed by the assessee as also in the appeal filed by the Revenue was, whether the Commissioner of Income‑tax (Appeals) was justified in sustaining the addition on the ground of cash credits in the sum of Rs. 5,00,

000. The Tribunal found that the assessee did not make any effort to prove that it really received the amounts from the parties and sold goods to them by filing confirmation letters and by producing them for examination before the authorities. In the absence of any proof regarding the genuineness of both the receipt of money, and sale of tea to the parties, the additions sustained by the Commissioner of Income‑tax (Appeals) should be sustained. This is a finding on a pure question of fact. On a reading of the order of the Appellate Tribunal as a whole, we are satisfied that no referable question of law, as formulated in para 7 of the original petition, arises for consideration in this original petition. The entire case centred round an appreciation of facts and circumstances as to whether the petitioner/assessee was able to prove the genuineness of the various cash credits appearing in its account books. The Appellate Tribunal found that the assessee totally failed to prove the genuineness of both the receipt of money and sale of tea to the parties. This is a pure finding of fact. No question of law arises in this case. The original petition is without merit. It is dismissed. M.Z.S./704/T Petition dismissed.