K. Raviraja Pandian, J.:— The relevant assessment year is 1994-95. This appeal is filed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in I.T.A No. 1898 of 2002 dated December 8, 2006.
2. The facts culled out from the statement of facts stated in the memorandum of appeal, are as follows:
3. For the assessment year 1994-95, initial assessment was framed on March 30, 2000, in terms of section 143(3) of the Act on the total taxable income at Rs. 1,29,82,250 as against the reported total taxable income at Rs. 1,28,290. A sum of Rs. 1,20,00,000 has been added as cash credit as well as security deposit in the assessment. Challenging the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who, by his order dated January 15, 2001, set aside the assessment and remitted back the matter to verify whether the assessee had sources of income for the security deposit.
4. In the reassessment, the Assessing Officer has accepted the most of the contribution relating to share capital and security deposits. However, in respect of a sum of Rs. 2,75,000, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee was not able to prove the genuineness of the deposit and brought the sum of Rs. 2,75,000 to tax. That order was carried on appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) without any success and the second appeal to the Tribunal also ended against the assessee. The correctness of the same is canvassed by filing this appeal framing the following questions of law:
“1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in concluding that the assessment of three credits in terms of section 68 of the Act even though the enquiry was carried after a lapse of considerable time and further even though the supporting details to discharge the initial onus to prove the genuineness of such credits were placed on record?
2. Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer in bringing to tax the assessment of three credits in terms of section 68 of the Act irrespective of the fact of lack of opportunity and irrespective of the fact of non-consideration of the facts either discussed or appreciated in the orders passed by the lower authorities ?”
5. We heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the orders of the authorities below.
6. The Assessing Officer has clearly given a finding that NSM Kader Mohideen, Madurai, had denied having made any deposit. In the case of M/s. Namasivayam Lining Works, Tuticorin also, the party denied the payment made towards share capital. In respect of the third party M/s. Ravi Petro Products, Karnool, notice sent by the Assessing Officer to the address given by the assessee was returned unserved. These three instances alone have been taken into account and the statutory authorities right from the Assessing Officer have taken the view that before the Assessing Officer no material to prove the case has been placed and the Tribunal has also confirmed the same. Before us also, learned counsel has not placed any extra material or extra argument to contend that the orders of the lower authorities in bringing the amount of Rs. 75,000, Rs. 1,00,000 and Rs. 1,00,000 towards cash credit is against the statutory provisions. We do not find any question of law, much less a substantial question of law for entertaining the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.