-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1381 OF 2000 Hassanand Thakurdas & Co. ).. Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai City XIII ).. Respondents Mr P.P Prabhu for the Appellant. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C. J. & A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATE: 23RD JULY 2008. P.C. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the affidavit had been filed by the employee and the Accountant and that had completely discharged the onus placed upon the assessee. The AO had granted ample opportunity, but the assessee failed to avail the same. Concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which is clear from the observations made as under :- “..... Before the CIT (A) the assessee brought out the story of the mischievous employee. The CIT (A), after the receipt of the remand report came to the -2- conclusion that the contention of the assessee is not acceptable. The findings of the CIT (A) are correct. Besides these we find that even if we assume that the employee's story may be given credence, still, the burden of proving the nature of cash credits is on the assessee as the facts are within his knowledge. Despite several opportunities, no explanation at all was offered, the story of mischievous employee was not taken as a defence before the AO and, in material terms, it was taken before the CIT (A). Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the addition is proper. We accordingly uphold the order of the CIT (A).” 2. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that no question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises in the present case. Dismissed. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE A. P. DESHPANDE, J.