IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Income Tax Appeal No.69 of 2002 (Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Nagpur .vs. Purushottam H. Agrawal, Nagpur) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr.A.J.Bhoot, Advocate for Appellant. Mr.N.S.Bhattad, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : M.S.SANKLECHA & MANISH PITALE, JJ. DATE : 19.6.2017. Heard. This appeal u/s.260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) challenges Order, dated 21 st May, 2002 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur (Tribunal). order relates to Block Assessment Years 1986-87 to 1995-96. 2. This appeal was admitted on 20.3.2007 on following substantial questions of law : 1) Whether in facts and circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal was justified in deleting additions made by Assessing Officer as undisclosed income on ground that additions could not be termed as 2 196itl69.02.odt undisclosed income within meaning of Sec.158B of IT Act, as these were based on entries in regular books of account ? 2) Whether in facts and circumstances of case and in law Tribunal was justified in deleting addition of Rs.40,58,298/- as undisclosed income under Section 158B on account of fictitious sales for Assessment Year 1992- 93, by holding that entries on basis of which addition is made were already recorded in books of account maintained by assessee in usual course of business ? 3) Whether in facts and circumstances of case and in law Tribunal was justified in deleting addition of Rs.3,00,000/- as undisclosed income under Section 158B on account of withdrawal of cash for Assessment Year 1992-93 by holding that entries on basis of which addition is made, were already recorded in books of accounts maintained by assessee in usual course of business ? 4. Whether in facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal 3 196itl69.02.odt was justified in deleting addition of Rs.32,33,800/- as undisclosed income under Section 158B on account of inflation of cash balance for Assessment Year 1992- 93, by holding that entries on basis of which addition is made were already recorded in books of account maintained by assessee in usual course of business ? 5. Whether in facts and circumstances of case Tribunal was justified in deleting addition of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- as undisclosed income under Section 158B on account of cash introduced by assessee in business of M/s.Abhay Borewell of which assessee is proprietor for Assessment Year 1993-94 by holding that entries on basis of books of account maintained by assessee in usual course of business ? 6. Whether in facts and circumstances of case Tribunal was justified in law in deleting addition of Rs.18,00,147/- as undisclosed income under Section 158B on account of difference of sales as recorded in fair cash book and rough cash book for Assessment Year 1994-95, by holding that entries 4 196itl69.02.odt on basis of which addition is made were already recorded in books of account maintained by assessee in usual course of business in spite of fact that additions were made on basis of rough cash book seized during course of search ? 7. Whether in facts and circumstances of case Tribunal was justified in deleting addition of Rs.1,95,000/- as undisclosed income under Section 158B on account of cash introduced for Assessment year 1994-95 by holding that entries on basis of which addition were made already recorded in books of account maintained by assessee in usual course of business ? 8. Whether in facts and circumstances of case Tribunal was justified in deleting addition of Rs.1,00,000/- out of addition of Rs.1,91,450/- as undisclosed income under section 158B on account of cash introduced for Assessment Year 1995- 96, by holding that entries on basis of which addition were made were already recorded in books of account maintained by assessee in usual 5 196itl69.02.odt course of business ? 9. Whether in facts and circumstances of case Tribunal was justified in deleting addition of Rs.10,85,270/- as undisclosed income under section 158B on account of payment of interest on unsecured loan for Assessment Year 1992-93 to 1994-95, by holding that entries on which Assessing Officer relied upon for making addition have been found recorded in regular books of account maintained by assessee in usual course of business ? 3. Learned Counsel for parties state that primary issue arising in this appeal is as reflected in Question No.1 hereinabove. This issue stands concluded against Revenue and in favour of appellant/assessee by virtue of order passed by us today in Income Tax Appeal No.63 of 2002, Commissioner of Income Tax .vs. M/s.Rajkumar Santoshkumar. It is agreed position between Counsel that facts and law arising in this case is identical of that which arise in case of M/s.Rajkumar Santoshkumar (supra). In fact, appellant herein is partner of firm M/s.Rajkumar Santoshkumar (supra). Therefore, in view of reasons given in our order passed today in case of 6 196itl69.02.odt M/s.Rajkumar Santoshkumar (supra), Question No.1, as raised, is answered in favour of respondent/assessee and against appellant/revenue. 4. In view of our answer to Question No.1 hereinabove, it is agreed position between parties that other questions would now become academic and not arise for consideration. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE jaiswal Commissioner of Income-tax-IV, Nagpur v. Purushottam H. Agrawal