Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-5 v. Surendra Mangaldas Shah (Huf

C/TAXAP/376/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 376 of 2018With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 378 of 2018 ========================================================== PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5,VersusSURENDRA MANGALDAS SHAH (HUF) ==========================================================Appearance:MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHIand HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA Date : 25/04/2018 COMMON ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1.These appeals filed by the Revenue arise in similar background involving same assessee. We may notice the facts and documents from Tax Appeal No.378 of 2018 which is treated as a lead matter. Respondent-assessee is the HUF and engaged in the business of lending money. For the assessment year 2007-08, the assessee had filed the return of income which showed sizable deposits made by the individuals. These were treated as unsecured loans by the assessee. The Assessing Officer doubted the genuineness of such deposits/loans. He called upon the assessee to provide necessary details of the depositors such as their income tax details, PAN card etc. Since the assessee failed to supply such details, the Assessing Officer added such amounts in the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit in terms of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ('the Act' for short). The Assessing Officer disallowed corresponding interest expenditure in relation to such loans. 2.Assessee carried the matter in appeal. Before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee presented necessary details of the depositors and sought permission to produce the same as additional evidence. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) granted such permission in terms of rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules and also called for the remand report from the Assessing Officer. After considering such materials, he restricted the disallowance to only a few depositors where the PAN details did not match. For the remaining, he noted that all deposits were through banking channel. The majority of the depositors were assessed to tax. Their PAN details were also produced. In short, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in relation to such deposits and depositors found that the same were genuine. 3.It is this view of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which the Tribunal confirmed in further appeal by the Revenue. From the documents on record, we can gather that the entire issue was fact based. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal concurrently held that the deposits in question were genuine. No question of law arises. Tax Appeals are dismissed. (AKIL KURESHI, J) ANKIT SHAH (B.N. KARIA, J)