The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Jamnadas M. Choksi Jewellers

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 97 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax ...Appellant Versus Jamnadas M. Choksi Jewellers ... Respondents. Mr. B.M. Chaterjee for the Appellant Mr. Pramodkumar Parida for the Respondents. CORAM:B ILAL NAZKIand A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. DATE: JULY 28, 2008 P.C.:- The question of law framed in the Memo of Appeal is as follows:- “Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, theLearned ITAT was right in deleting the addition ofRs.14,50,000/- being the unexplained cash credit andinterest thereon of Rs.2,50,757/-?” Whether the amount was deducted or could have been added to the income has been considered in paragraph 7 of the order of the Tribunal. Paragraph 7 reads as under:- “Having heard both the sides, we have carefully gonethrough the orders of the authorities below. Rivalsubmissions were considered. Admittedly, the additionmade by the AO on the basis of the affidavit given by ShriY.J. Chokshi and the fact that the summons could not beserved upon the cash creditors. We find that all thetransactions are through account payee cheques and theconformations from the creditors have been furnished beforethe AO. All the cash creditors are assessed to tax and theassessee furnished all the details before the AO. Theassessee was not allowed to cross examine Shri Y.J.Chokshi and therefore, in the absence of such opportunity,the affidavit of Shri Y.J. Chokshi cannot be used against theassessee. Shri Y.J. Chokshi made a disclosure of income ofRs.1 crore in his own case which shows that he had thefinancial capacity to advance loans. Keeping in view thetotality of Rs.1 crore in his own case which (sic) shows thathe had the financial capacity to advance loans. Keeping inview the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case,we hold that the CIT (A) has given cogent reason fordeleting the addition of Rs.14,50,000/- including interest ofRs.2,50,757/-. We, therefore, decline to interfere.” Reading the above paragraph, it is very clear that the question framed is not at all a question of law. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. BILAL NAZKI, J. A.A. KUMBHAKONI, J.