THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JAY ENTERPRISE

C/TAXAP/801/2019 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 801 of 2019 ================================================================ THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus M/S JAY ENTERPRISE ================================================================ Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA

Date : 13/01/2020

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. This tax appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act, 1961”) is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot dated 30th April, 2019 in the IT(SS) No.24/Rjt/2017 for the A.Y.2009-10. 2. The Revenue has proposed the following questions, as the substantial questions of law, arising in the present appeal; “(A) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts by upholding the decision of CIT(A) which deleted the addition of Rs.7,93,94,849/- on account of unexplained Cash Credit u/s.68 of the Act? (B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts by not upholding the grounds raised with regard to scope of the provisions of the Section 153A of the Act? (C ) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law by Page 1 of 3

C/TAXAP/801/2019 ORDER not adjudicating the matter on merits without first adjudicating legal grounds?” 3. We take notice of the following findings of fact recorded by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in its impugned order; “5) We have gone through the relevant record and impugned order. In this case, a search was conducted on 20.5.2015 and proceedings were initiated u/s.153A and during the search no incriminating document was found and seized and during the assessment proceedings, A.O noticed that assessee has taken a loan of Rs.7.30 Crore from Manaksia Trexim Pvt. Ltd., Culcutta. He made detailed inquiries through investigation wing of Calcutta and concerned person of Manaksia Trexim Pvt. Ltd in short MTPL clearly stated that it had advanced loan to the appellant and source of the loan was also explained . And it was also submitted that creditor received funds from Manaksia Trexim Pvt. Ltd. its own group concerned and source of source was also explained. 8) Since nothing incriminating document was found and seized from the premise of the assessee and during the assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Ld. A.O. that assessee has taken loan from MTPL and assessee has satisfactorily explained the reason of the said transaction genuineness and rather source of the source was also explained.” 4. Thus, it appears that a search was undertaken on 20th May, 2013 and the proceedings were initiated under Section 153A of the Act. In the course of the search undertaken by the Department, nothing incriminating was found or recovered from the assessee, and in the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer took notice of the fact that the assessee had obtained a loan of Rs.7.30 Crore from one Manaksia Trexim Pvt. Ltd based at Calcutta. The Assessing Officer got the matter inquired through the Investigating Wing of the Calcutta, and the inquiry revealed that loan was in fact advanced. The source of the loan was also explained. Thus, it Page 2 of 3

C/TAXAP/801/2019 ORDER was confirmed that the assessee had received funds from Manaksia Trexim Pvt. Ltd, one of its own groups. The Tribunal also notes that no incriminating document was found and seized from the premise of the assessee during the assessment proceedings. 5. Essentially, there are questions of fact which have been resolved by the CIT (A) as affirmed by the Tribunal. 6. In such circumstances, we are of the view that none of the questions formulated in the memorandum of the appeal, as proposed by the Revenue, could be termed as the substantial questions of law. 7. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) Vahid Page 3 of 3