Madhya Pradesh High Court
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Mehrotra Brothers on 5 February, 2003
Equivalent citations: [2004]270ITR157(MP)
Author: A.K. Shrivastava
Bench: A.K. Shrivastava
JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. At the outset we may mention that when this appeal was presented no question of law was framed by the appellant. Later on, two questions of law have been framed. They read as under :
"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified for setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act ?
(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in accepting the cash credit only on the identity of the creditor without verification of capacity/credit worthiness of the creditors in the light of the judgment reported in Shankar Industries v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 689 (Cal); Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) ; CIT v. Kohinoor Tobacco Products P. Ltd. [1998] 234 ITR 557 (MP); Nanak Chandra Laxman Das v. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 151 (All) and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd.V. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) ?"
2. To appreciate the aforesaid questions of law which are urged to be substantial questions of law, we have perused the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as that of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal in paragraph 10 of the order dwelt upon the facts and came to hold as under :
"10. We have considered the citations relied on by both the parties and concluded that when the assessee has furnished requisite information and the Income-tax Officer has .considered the records before him and completed the assessment after considering the evidence filed and after his satisfaction about the genuineness of cash credits, the order of revision under Section 263 on vague ground that the Assessing Officer did not make proper enquiry is not valid (CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. [1988] 171 ITR 141 (MP)). The assessee furnished GIR/PAN number, address, confirmation from the creditors, the assessee has discharged the burden to prove the genuineness of parties and transaction in addition to the capacity satisfactorily as such there is no ground for addition (Addl. CIT v. Hanuman Agarwal [1985] 151 ITR 150 (Patna)). In this regard the Department also has not brought any material to disprove the genuineness of the parties, capacity of the lenders and transactions on the basis of cogent facts on record. The hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (headnote) : 'Held, that in this case the respondent had given the names and addresses of the alleged creditors. It was in the knowledge of the Revenue that the said creditors were income-tax assessees. Their index numbers were in the file of the Revenue. The Revenue apart from issuing notices under Section 131 at the instance of the respondent, did not pursue the matter further. The Revenue did not examine the source of income of the said alleged creditors to find out whether they were credit worthy. There was no effort made to pursue the so called alleged creditors. In those circumstances, the respondent could not do anything further. In the premises, if the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the respondent had discharged the burden that lay on it, then it could not be said that such a conclusion was unreasonable or perverse or based on no evidence.'
3. The decisions of the Patna High Court in the case of CIT v. Ram Prasad Ram Bhagat [1987] 163 ITR 202; Addl. CIT v. Bahri Brothers (P.) Ltd. [1985] 154 ITR 244, the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sundar Lal Jain v. CIT [1979] 117 ITR 316 ; Shankar Industries v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 689 (Cal) and the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Shiv Shakti Timbers [1998] 229 ITR 505 ; CIT v. Shanti Swarup [2002] 255 ITR 655 (P & H); CIT v. Ram Narain Goel [1997] 224 ITR 180 (P&H); Instrumed (India) International v. ITO [1999] 63 TTJ 191 (ITAT) (Delhi) assist the claim of the assessee. The assessee has explained satisfactorily the cash credits in the books of account of the firm and discharged the burden. The Department has not brought out material or evidence to rebut the same. As such the cash credits are not the income of the firm."
4. In view of the aforesaid finding of fact we are of the considered view that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal.
5. Consequently, the appeal being sans merit, stands dismissed.