The Commissioner Of Income Tax – Iii, Pune v. M/S.national Ply And Laminates, Pune

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.966 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax – III, Pune..Appellant. VersusM/s.National Ply and Laminates, Pune..Respondent. Mr.Vimal Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms.Padma Divakar for the appellant.None for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. DATE : 16[th] January 2013 P.C. : 1.Although three questions of law have been raised by the Revenue in this appeal, the basic dispute has been formulated by the Revenue in the following question : “Whether the Tribunal is correct in deleting addition of Rs.60 lakhs by giving emphasis on verifiable cheque transactions whereas the real life situation clearly show that a number of times bogus transactions are routed through cheque and being routed through cheque is not conclusive proof of genuineness ?” 2.The respondent – assessee is engaged in the business of trading in plywood and laminated sheets. During the course of survey proceedings, it was noticed by the assessing officer that a loan of Rs.60 lakhs is taken by the respondent – assessee from one Smt.Neeta Gada. The assessing officer doubted the creditworthiness of said Smt.Neeta Gada and made additions of Rs.60 lakhs to the assessee's income by invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act). 3.On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) deleted the addition of Rs.60 lakhs. On further appeal filed by the Revenue, the Tribunal by its order dated 29[th] January 2010 held that Rs.60 lakhs was credited in the assessee's account through cheque transaction and was received from the account of the said Smt.Neeta Gada. It is further recorded that the said Smt.Neeta Gada had for the purpose of advancing the loan, taken a loan from one Dhiren B Shah (HUF), who happened to be her relative. This transaction was also through bank. In these circumstances, the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) was upheld. Further, the Tribunal also noted that both Smt.Neeta Gada as well as Dhiren B Shah (HUF) were assessed to income-tax and for the subsequent year i.e. AY 2004-2005, the respondent – assessee had returned the loan of Rs.60 lakhs to said Smt.Neeta Gada through a bank transaction. In view of the above, the Tribunal while upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. 4.We find that the decision of the Tribunal upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) is based on finding of fact, we see no reason to entertain the present appeal as the Revenue has not been able to show that the finding is perverse. 5.The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. Sanklecha, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)