The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Nashik v. Per Court

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD.APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION OfficeNotes,Office Court's or Judge's orders.MemorandaofCoram, appearance,Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 20 OF 2012 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, NASHIK VERSUS JAI BAJRANG GINNING AND PRESSING P LTD. ... Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Soman D. V.*** CORAM:S.C.DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V.GHUGE,JJ.DATED: 11th FEBRUARY, 2014. PER COURT: 1.Heard Mr. Soman appearing on behalf of the Appellant/ Revenue. Perused Sections 68 and 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We have also perused the concurrent findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 2.The Assessing Officer could lay his hands on 16 instances involving persons who had appeared and admitted of advancing loans to the assessee. However, he found that there existence was not in dispute, they have explained their sources of income but the Assessing Officer disbelieved them. 3.The findings of the Tribunal as also the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are that the lenders are agriculturists, they have sold their cotton produce to the assessee company which is engaged in the business of ginning and pressing of cotton. The lenders are not strangers to the assessee company inasmuch as they are its shareholders. All creditors have been repaid subsequently through account payee cheques. In these circumstances, the three ingredients viz. identity, creditworthiness of the lenders as well as genuineness of the transaction have been satisfied and the Tribunal has, together with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), concurrently held that the explanation offered is, in their opinion, satisfactory. The explanation offered has been considered in para 9 and 10 of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The findings are essentially factual. They do not give rise to any substantial question of law. Merely because the amounts have been paid by the assessee during the course of the proceedings before the Assessing Officer that by itself will not mean that the ingredients as necessitated and to be satisfied have not been satisfied. There is no merit in this appeal as it does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Hence, the appeal is [RAVINDRA V. GHUGE,J.][S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J.]Dt.11/02/2014 ans/20