Gujarat High Court
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Rsa Digi Prints....Opponent(S) on 6 September, 2017
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Biren Vaishnav
O/TAXAP/503/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL NO. 503 of 2017
==========================================================
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VADODARA....Appellant(s)
Versus
RSA DIGI PRINTS....Opponent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KM PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 06/09/2017
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 21.11.2016 raising following questions for our consideration:
"(A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in dismissing the appeal of the revenue, without appreciating the fact that the depositor M/s RSA Marketing did not have the capacity of giving such loan to the assessee and ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. P. Mohanakala as reported in [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) where in it is held that the money came by way of bank cheques and was paid through the process of banking transaction was not by itself of any consequence ?
2. For the assessment year 201011 in the order of Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Sun Sep 10 05:42:57 IST 2017 O/TAXAP/503/2017 ORDER assessment, the Assessing Officer had made an addition of unexplained cash credit of Rs.50,86,007/ which included a sum of Rs.47.90 lakhs and interest of Rs.2,96,007/ on a loan amount availed by the assessee from the sister concern. The assessee disputed such addition. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the same. Upon which, the Revenue approached the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned judgment confirmed the view of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) making following observations:
"17. We have heard both the parties reiterating their respective stands. The assessee files before us a copy of this tribunal's order in IT(SS)A No.35/Ahd/2014 in its own case for assessment year 200607 upholding the CIT(A)'s order deleting identical Section 68 decision qua loans received from the above sister concern. Both parties very much agree that the assessee has filed similar type of evidence i.e. copy of PAN card, address, confirmation, copy of return and bank statements etc. in both assessment years. We thus find no reason to adopt a different approach in the impugned assessment year in this backdrop of facts. These two Revenue's ground are accordingly declined."
3. From the materials on record, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and Tribunal both had come to the conclusion that the assessee had produced the copy of PAN card, address confirmation, copy of the return and Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Sun Sep 10 05:42:57 IST 2017 O/TAXAP/503/2017 ORDER the bank statements of the payee for the present assessment year as well as in the earlier assessment year where such an issue had cropped up. Essentially, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal held that the assessee established the genuineness of transaction, creditworthiness of payee and the source of the payment. The issue hinges on appreciation of material on record. No question of law arises. Tax Appeal is dismissed.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (BIREN VAISHNAV, J.) ANKIT Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Sun Sep 10 05:42:57 IST 2017