1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1813 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax-21 ..Appellant. Vs. Smt. Beena Ramnik M. Chawda ..Respondent. .... Ms. Suchitra Kamble for the Appellant. Ms. Aasifa Khan for the Respondent. .... CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. 20th January, 2010. P.C.: 1. The short question in the appeal under Section 260A is whether the Tribunal was justified in modifying and restricting the addition to an amount of Rs.10 lacs. Basically, the three points which fell for consideration before the Tribunal related to (i) the addition to income of the component described as on money ; (ii) unexplained cash credits and (iii) jewellery. “ ” 2. Insofar as the first of the aforesaid points is concerned, the order passed by the assessing officer takes note of the fact that as per the seized books of account, the total amount received from eight flat owners was recorded at Rs.56.13 lacs. The assessee urged before the Tribunal that the entire 2 amount of on money could not be added as undisclosed income and only a “ ” specified percentage thereof could be assessed as the profit of the assessee since the assessee had also incurred expenditure therefrom. Decisions of co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal were relied upon to submit that the income out of the on money has been estimated at between 8 to 15%. The Tribunal entered a “ ” finding of fact that on a construction project involving an amount of Rs.56 lacs the profit element could not be as high as Rs.33 lacs. In the circumstances, following the decisions of its co-ordinate Benches the income element qua on “ money was assessed at 10% of Rs.32.93 lacs. Insofar as the cash credits were ” concerned, the Tribunal found that the departmental authorities had not brought any seized materials on the record that would show that any evidence was found during the course of the search regarding undisclosed cash credits to assess the same as undisclosed income in the block assessment. Inasmuch as the issue of jewellery was concerned, the Tribunal noted that a certain amount of jewellery must have been received by the assessee at the time of her marriage and the department could not presume on the basis of a mere conjecture that all the jewellery is from undisclosed sources. 3. We do not find that any substantial question would arise in the present case. The view of the Tribunal is a possible view. The Tribunal has entered a pure finding of fact. However, Counsel appearing on behalf of the 3 Appellant sought to place reliance on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. ((1994) Vol 208 ITR 465). There can be no doubt about the principle of law that it is for the assessee to prove the identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. In the case before the Calcutta High Court, the enquiry of the Income Tax Officer had revealed that either the assessee was not traceable or there was no such file and accordingly the first ingredient as to the identity of the creditors had not been established. Consequently, it was held that the genuineness of the transaction or the creditworthiness of the creditors could not arise. The facts of the present case are distinguishable inasmuch as the Tribunal has observed that from the materials which were seized during the course of the search, there was absolutely no evidence to support the assessment of the cash credits as the undisclosed income of the assessee in the course of the block assessment. In these circumstances, no substantial question of law is raised. The appeal shall accordingly stand dismissed. (Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)