1999-VIL-239-MP-DT

Equivalent Citation: [2000] 244 ITR 442, 157 CTR 73, 112 TAXMANN 353

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Date: 28.07.1999

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Vs

PITHAMPUR CONZIMA (P.) LTD.

BENCH

Judge(s)  : B. A. KHAN., SHAMBHOO SINGH 

JUDGMENT

The Revenue has filed this application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for requiring the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following questions stated to be questions of law for the opinion of this court :

"(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the addition in respect of unexplained deposits appearing in the books of account of the assessee could not be made in the hands of the assessee company but only in the hands of the individuals in whose name such deposits had been made despite the legal provisions of section 68 in this regard ?

(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing relief to the assessee in respect of the unexplained deposits on the basis of the individual returns filed by the depositors, particularly when this issue was not raised before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and as such the same did not arise from his appellate order in the matter ?

(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and in view of the material on record and specific finding recorded by the Assessing Officer and the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding the unproved credit worthiness and the genuineness of the transactions, the view taken by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, for allowing relief to the assessee was not inconsistent with and contrary to material on record against the assessee's claim in the matter ?"

It emerges that the assessee introduced unsecured loan of Rs. 5,12,417.90 in the names of its directors and the wife of one of its directors, A part of the unsecured loan was accepted by the Revenue and a part of it was disallowed. The assessee took an appeal to the Tribunal and explained that forums below had overlooked the record placed before them which showed that credits given to the assessee-company were duly declared by the creditors in the new returns. Upon this, the Tribunal concluded that the investment in the assessee-firm was duly explained and no addition was called for in the hands of the assessee and deleted the addition. The Revenue sought reference which was rejected. Hence, this application.

It becomes clear that the Tribunal had accepted the explanation of the assessee which showed that the credit given was duly declared by the creditors in the new return, and, therefore, deletion of the addition was on the basis of the satisfaction reached by the Tribunal and on the appreciation of material before it. The matter accordingly does not give rise to any question of law warranting dismissal of this application which is accordingly dismissed.

 

DISCLAIMER: Though all efforts have been made to reproduce the order accurately and correctly however the access, usage and circulation is subject to the condition that VATinfoline Multimedia is not responsible/liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any mistake/error/omissions.