The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Karnal v. Sh. Satish Kumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : I. T. A. No. 332 of 2008Date of Decision : November 28, 2008. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnal....Appellant Vs. Sh. Satish Kumar Prop. M/s ShivShakti Timber Store, Imambara, Karnal....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present :Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Standing Counselfor the Revenue. * * * ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) : 1.The Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260-A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) against the order of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench `A', New Delhi in ITANo.1975/Del/2004 for the Assessment Year 2000-2001, proposing to raisefollowing substantial question of law :- “Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Ld. I.T.A.T. wasright in law in upholding the order of the CIT (A),deleting the addition of Rs.10,50,000/- made bythe A.O. u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?” 2.The Assessing Officer made addition to the declared amount ofthe assessee by Rs.10,50,000/- treating the amount of cash credit to be anunexplained income. The CIT (A) reversed the finding of the AssessingOfficer and held that there was no ground for the addition and there wasnothing to doubt the genuineness of credit entries. The Tribunal upheld thesaid finding and observed :- “After hearing the submissions we are of theview that while deciding the appeal to assessmentyear 2001-02, the CIT (A) has considered therelevant assessment record and submissions of theappellant. He has held that since the persons wereproduced before the Assessing Officer whichprove the identity. He has also observed that thesecreditors have also sufficiently explained thesources regarding the deposit in their bank accountthe transactions were from the bank account noneof the depositors were remotely related to theappellant and he held that the credit worthiness andgenuineness of transactions stands proved beyondreasonable doubt. The department has acceptedthis finding of the CIT(A) and has not filed anappeal against the order. In such a situation wehave no alternate but to confirm the order of theCIT (A) in this year also.” 3.We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue and perusedthe record.4.It was submitted that the order of the CIT (A) for theassessment of the subsequent year, which has been referred to by theTribunal was in respect of interest.5.Even though the issue of interest in respect of same creditor will not stand on different footing, the CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal haverecorded a finding that creditors explained the source regarding theirdeposits in the bank and the entries could not be held to be doubtful. 6.In view of above, no substantial question of law arises forconsideration. 7.The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)JUDGE November 28, 2008monika ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE