Itxa/1975/2017 Of Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax Central 4 v. Anil Mahavir Gupta

Digitallysigned byMEERAMEERAMAHESHMAHESHJADHAVJADHAVDate:2021.11.1710:32:41+0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1975 OF 2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central-4 V/s. Anil Mahavit Gupta ….Appellant …Respondent Mr. Tejveer Singh for AppellantNone for Respondent ---- ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ DATED : 15[th] NOVEMBER 2021 P.C. : 1At the outset, we have to note that this appeal has been filed againsttwo concurrent findings against respondent, one by CIT (Appeals) andthereafter by ITAT. Appellant is impugning an order dated 31[st] August 2016passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai. 2Appellant has proposed the following substantial question of law:- “(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and inlaw, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in deleting the addition made inthe assessment order in respect of unexplained sundry creditors u/s68 of I.T. Act of Rs.24,03,56,882/- without appreciating that theparties from whom purchases are said to have been made hadcategorically accepted that they had given accommodation entries tothe assessee ?” 3Respondent was carrying on business of trading in various steel products as sole proprietor in the name and style of M/s Gupta SteelCorporation. In the course of assessment proceedings for AY.-2006-2007,the Assessing Officer considered the maximum credit balance standing inthe names of 8 creditors at Rs.24,03,56,882/- as unexplained credits within the meaning of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act). Theprimary reason to hold that these aforesaid credits as unexplained was thatthe creditors are alleged to have admitted before the department that theyhave provided to respondent accommodation transactions only and thus,respondent had not made any actual purchases from the said creditors. Admittedly, these creditors have later retracted the statement given bythem and in paragraph 13.5 of the impugned order, ITAT has provideddetails of the 8 parties and the say of respondent on each of them. 4There has been a finding of fact that after such retraction by creditorsand recording of their statement by the Assessing Officer, there is nothingbrought on record by the Revenue to disprove that such retractions areuntenable or bad in the eyes of law. Even today there is nothing before usproduced by the Revenue to prove that such retractions have to be ignored. 6In our view, the ITAT has not committed any perversity or appliedincorrect principles to the given facts and when the facts and circumstancesare properly analysed and correct test is applied to decide the issue at hand,then, we do not think that question as pressed raises any substantialquestion of law. 7The appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed with no order as tocosts. (AMIT B. BORKAR, J) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)