IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 05.01.2015 CORAM HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.KARUPPIAH T.C.A. NO. 986 OF 2007 Commissioner of Income Tax Coimbatore.Appellant -Vs-M/s. Jain Corporation 30, Abdulgani Street Thirunagar Colony, Erode.Respondent Appeal filed against order dated 22.12.2006 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras D Bench, Chennai made in ITA No.40/Mds/05. For Appellant: Mr. M.Swaminathan, assisted by Ms. V.Pushpa For Respondent: Mr. Philip George JUDGMENT (DELIVERED BY R.SUDHAKAR,J.) Aggrieved by order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in dismissing appeal filed by it, Revenue is before this Court challenging said order by filing present appeal and this Court, vide order dated 9.7.07, framed following substantial questions of law for consideration:- 1) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Income Tax Tribunal is right in law in deleting additions made towards cash 2 credit for assessment year 2001-2002? 2) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Income Tax Tribunal is right in law in not considering fact that Rule 46A had been violated by upholding action of CIT Appeals? 3) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Income Tax Tribunal is right in law in deleting additions made without considering specific findings of assessing officer and going ahead with fresh material placed before it without affording opportunity to assessing officer to cross examine creditors? 2. respondent/assessee is firm engaged in business of textiles. respondent/assessee filed return of income for assessment year on 17.10.01. said return was processed under Section 143 (1) of Act on 23.5.02. Subsequently, case was selected for scrutiny to examine sundry credits amounting to Rs.109 Lakhs after approval of competent authority. Notice under Section 143 (2) dated 11.6.02 was served on assessee on 15.6.02 and after several hearings and perusal of records, letter was issued by Assessing Officer on 18.3.04 indicating stand to Department to effect as to why trade credits should be treated as not genuine, as certain transactions were not proved beyond doubt. assessee was given opportunity to file objections as to why credit shown should not be taken as not proved and said amount should not be added as income. After hearing, Assessing Officer came to hold that certain trade credits are not genuine and said amount was added to income. 3. Against said order, assessee filed appeal to CIT (Appeals), who, after verifying records produced by assessee to support his plea that trade creditors are genuine, took into account certain records and also called for report from Assessing Officer, and based on reports of Assessing Officer dated 9.8.04 and 24.9.04 and other 3 records, came to hold that trade creditors are genuine. Along with order, CIT (Appeals) enclosed annexure giving details of names of such party, explanation offered by assessee, bank payment details and banker's certificate and came to conclusion that they are bona fide trade creditors and, therefore, addition was deleted. 4. Aggrieved by said order of CIT (Appeals), Revenue filed appeal before Tribunal. Tribunal, taking note of detailed order passed by CIT (Appeals), so also report of Assessing Officer as requisitioned by CIT (Appeals), held that there was no case for department to reject claim and original assessment and that creditors were genuine trade creditors and dismissed appeal, against which present appeal has been preferred by Revenue/appellant. 5. Heard learned standing counsel appearing for Revenue/appellant and learned counsel appearing for respondent/assessee. 6. From perusal of order passed by CIT (Appeals) as well as Tribunal, we find that issue as raised is pure question of fact as has been concurrently found by CIT (Appeals) and Tribunal. Accordingly, there being no infirmity in above order of Tribunal, first question of law is answered in favour of assessee and against Revenue. 7. Insofar as second question of law is concerned, since procedure prescribed under Act has been complied with, second question of law is also answered in favour of assessee and against Revenue. 8. In view of answer to second question of law, which has been answered against Revenue, third question of law being repetitive and academic, is not being dealt 4 with by this Court. 9. In result, this Court is of considered view that no interference is warranted with order passed by Tribunal and, accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.(R.S.J.) (R.K.J.) 05.01.2015 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No GLN To 1. Commissioner of Income Tax Coimbatore. 2. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'D' Bench Chennai. 5 R.SUDHAKAR, J. AND R.KARUPPIAH, J. GLN T.C.A. NO.986 OF 2007 05.01.2015. Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore v. M/s. Jain Corporation