PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, vs. SURENDRA MANGALDAS SHAH (HUF)

These   appeals   filed   by   the   Revenue   arise   in similar background involving same assessee.   We may notice the facts and documents from Tax Appeal No.378 of   2018   which   is   treated   as   a   lead   matter. Respondent­assessee   is   the   HUF   and   engaged   in   the business of lending money.   For the assessment year 2007­08, the assessee had filed the return of income which   showed   sizable   deposits   made   by   the individuals.   These were treated as unsecured loans by the assessee.   The Assessing Officer doubted the genuineness of such deposits/loans.   He called upon C/TAXAP/376/2018 ORDER the   assessee   to   provide   necessary   details   of   the depositors such as their income tax details, PAN card etc.     Since   the   assessee   failed   to   supply   such details, the Assessing Officer added such amounts in the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit in terms of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ('the   Act'   for   short).     The   Assessing   Officer disallowed   corresponding   interest   expenditure   in relation to such loans.

Assessee carried the matter in appeal.   Before the   Commissioner   of   Income   Tax   (Appeals),   the assessee   presented   necessary   details   of   the depositors and sought permission to produce the same as additional evidence.   Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) granted such permission in terms of rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules and also called for the remand   report   from   the   Assessing   Officer.     After considering   such   materials,   he   restricted   the disallowance to only a few depositors where the PAN details did not match. For the remaining, he noted that all deposits were through banking channel.  The majority   of   the   depositors   were   assessed   to   tax. Their PAN details were also produced.  In short, the C/TAXAP/376/2018 ORDER Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in relation to such deposits and depositors found that the same were genuine.

It is this view of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which the Tribunal confirmed in further appeal by the Revenue.  From the documents on record, we can gather that the entire issue was fact based. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal concurrently held that the deposits in question were genuine.  No question of law arises.  Tax Appeals are dismissed. (AKIL KURESHI, J) (B.N. KARIA, J) ANKIT SHAH