Ita/98/2018 Of Sanjay Rathi v. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) I Jabalpur

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHI.T.A. No.98 of 2018 Jabalpur, Dated 17.05.2018 Shri J.N. Purohit, learned Senior Counsel withMs. Uma Parasar, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on the question of admission. This appeal has been filed by the appellant beingaggrieved by order dated 14.03.2018 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur in ITANo.212/JAB/2015, whereby, the Tribunal has affirmedthe addition of Rs.27.00 lakhs to the income of theappellant by rejecting the contention that the same wasderived from obtaining cash credits from one KamalKishore Kothari, Bhavesh Popat and Tulsiram Baisate. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for theappellant submits that the Tribunal has committedperversity in appreciation of the facts and documents onrecord, inasmuch as the appellant/assessee hadproduced the affidavits of the creditors establishing notjust the fact that they had extended credits to theappellant, but also their creditworthiness. It is submittedthat the Tribunal while dismissing the appeal filed by theappellant has totally ignored the affidavits filed by thecreditors and has not applied its mind to the aforesaidfacts and documents that were available on record and, THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHI.T.A. No.98 of 2018 thereby committed perversity giving rise to a substantialquestion of law for adjudication of the present appeal. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for theappellant at length. From a perusal of the record, it is apparent that theappellant admittedly stated that he had taken credit ofRs.9.00 lakhs each from Kamal Kishore Kothari,Bhavesh Popat and Tulsiram Baisate and theirstatements to that effect were also recorded during theassessment proceedings. However, as the appellantwas not given an opportunity to cross-examine theaforesaid creditors, he had filed their affidavits beforethe CIT(Appeals), who remitted the matter back on thebasis of the affidavits filed by the creditors with a view togive an opportunity to the appellant to cross-examinethe creditors and prove their creditworthiness. It is alsoan admitted and undisputed fact that on remand, theappellant was given an opportunity of cross-examinationinspite of which the appellant failed to provecreditworthiness of the alleged creditors. The Tribunal inpara 5 of its order has given reasons for not acceptingthe alleged cash credits after analyzing the oral anddocumentary evidence on record and while doing so theTribunal has held as under: THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHI.T.A. No.98 of 2018 “5.From the perusal of the record aswell as detailed examination by learned CIT(A), the following facts goes uncontroverted atthe end of the assessee that commonly for allthe three cash creditors there were deposits incash on the day of giving unsecured loans andthe amount was withdrawn in cash on the dateof returning back of the cheque. It was furthernotice that there was no interest provided,source of income remains unsubstantiated andthe regular income of each cash creditor is toomeager to justify the high unsecured loan givenby them. Above all, when the opportunity ofcross-examination was given, the assesseecompletely failed to prove the creditworthinessof the alleged cash creditors. We, therefore, inthe given facts and circumstances of the case,find no reason to interfere with the order of theld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.27lakhs. In the result, ground No.1 of theassessee is dismissed.” Apparently, the aforesaid finding recorded by theTribunal are concurrent findings of fact that have beenrecorded by all the authorities against the appellant andthere is nothing on record to indicate that the finding THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHI.T.A. No.98 of 2018 4 recorded by the Tribunal in para 5 is either perverse ornot based on oral and documentary evidence on record. Apparently, the aforesaid finding recorded by theTribunal are concurrent findings of fact that have beenrecorded by all the authorities against the appellant andthere is nothing on record to indicate that the finding THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHI.T.A. No.98 of 2018 4 recorded by the Tribunal in para 5 is either perverse ornot based on oral and documentary evidence on record. In such circumstances, we do not find anysubstantial question of law arising for adjudication in thepresent appeal. The appeal being meritless isaccordingly dismissed. (Ravi Shankar Jha) (Rajeev Kumar Debey) Judge Judge SJ Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Date: 2018.06.04 15:03:17 +05'30'