Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Satish Kumar - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- .....in law in upholding the order of the cit(a), deleting the addition of rs. 10,50,000 made by the assessing officer under section 68 of the income-tax act, 1961?2. the assessing officer made addition to the declared amount of the assessee by rs. 10,50,000 treating the amount of cash credit to be an unexplained income. the cit(a) reversed the finding of the assessing officer and held that there was no ground for the addition and there was nothing to doubt the genuineness of credit entries. the tribunal upheld the said finding and observed:after hearing the submissions we are of the view that while deciding the appeal to assessment year 2001-02, the cit(a) has considered the relevant assessment record and submissions of the appellant. he has held that since the persons were produced.....

Judgment:
ORDER

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.

1. The revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi in ITA No. 1975/Delhi/2004 for the assessment year 2000-01, proposing to raise following substantial question of law:

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. IT AT was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A), deleting the addition of Rs. 10,50,000 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?

2. The Assessing Officer made addition to the declared amount of the assessee by Rs. 10,50,000 treating the amount of cash credit to be an unexplained income. The CIT(A) reversed the finding of the Assessing Officer and held that there was no ground for the addition and there was nothing to doubt the genuineness of credit entries. The Tribunal upheld the said finding and observed:

After hearing the submissions we are of the view that while deciding the appeal to assessment year 2001-02, the CIT(A) has considered the relevant assessment record and submissions of the appellant. He has held that since the persons were produced before the Assessing Officer which prove the identity. He has also observed that these creditors have also sufficiently explained the sources regarding the deposit in their bank account the transactions were from the bank account none of the depositors were remotely related to the appellant and he held that the creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. The department has accepted this finding of the CIT(A) and has not filed an appeal against the order. In such a situation we have no alternate but to confirm the order of the CIT(A) in this year also.

3. We have heard learned Counsel for the revenue and perused the record.

4. It was submitted that the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment of the subsequent year, which has been referred to by the Tribunal 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 have recorded a finding that creditors explained the source regarding their deposits in the bank and the entries could not be held to be doubtful.

6. In view of above, no substantial question of law arises for consideration.

7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.