PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 vs. M/S SAI COMMERCIAL SERVICE

ITA-25-2017 (PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 Vs M/S SAI COMMERCIAL SERVICE) 20-02-2017 Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the appellant. This is revenue’s appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenging the concurrent orders passed by the Commissioner Appeals and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the matter of interfering with certain additions made by the Assessing Officer in the order of assessment pertaining to Assessment Year 2007-2008. Respondent is a Firm deriving income from commercial service and carries out business of para- banking for the year in question, a return of income was filed, and on account of unexplained cash credit and due to inability of the assessee to prove the identity of the persons to whom the credits were made, the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions not being established, additions were made by the Assessing Officer and these additions having being deleted by the Appellate Authorities namely, the Commissioner Appeals and the Tribunal, the concurrent findings recorded by the tribunal and the appellate authority namely the Commissioner are challenged. Having gone through the detailed order passed by the learned appellate authority we find that based on the documents and records that came on record a detailed finding has been recorded with regard to genuineness of the transactions, the creditworthiness of the same and we see no reason to interfere with these concurrent findings of fact. Infact on going through the detailed order passed by learned tribunal, we find that after taking note of findings recorded by the Commissioner Income Tax Appeal from para 11 to 15 of its order in para 5.1 the learned tribunal deals with the matter in the following manner : “5.1 It is very much evident that the Ld. CIT (A) has recorded a conclusive finding after considering the evidences before him. The stand of the assessee is supported by the reconciliation statement which have been duly taken note of b the Ld. CIT (A). It is also noteworthy that the AO did not examine the additional evidences submitted by the assessee during the first appellate proceedings although he was given an opportunity for filing a remand report and therefore the department cannot have a grouse at this juncture. Moreover, even during the proceedings before us, the Department could not bring any new fact on record so as to disprove the findings of the Ld CIT (A). Hence, we find no reason to disturb the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) and we confirm his orders for both the years under appeal. 6. In the final result, both the appeals of the department are dismissed.” The tribunal having reconsidered the issue in accordance with law and as the finding, concurrent in nature, are nothing but findings of fact based on due appreciation of record and evidence that came on record, we find no substantial question of law involved in the matter warranting reconsideration, the appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (RAJENDRA MENON) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (H.P. SINGH) JUDGE ss