The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jay Enterprise
[Citation -2020-LL-0113-75]

Citation 2020-LL-0113-75
Appellant Name The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax
Respondent Name Jay Enterprise
Court HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 13/01/2020
Assessment Year 2009-10
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags unexplained cash credit • incriminating document • assessment proceedings • investigation wing • source of source • oral order • loan transaction • source of fund
Bot Summary: The Revenue has proposed the following questions, as the substantial questions of law, arising in the present appeal; 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 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 Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law by Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 10:34:04 IST 2020 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. 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. 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 Tribunal also notes that no incriminating document was found and seized from the premise of the assessee during the assessment proceedings. Essentially, there are questions of fact which have been resolved by the CIT as affirmed by the Tribunal.


IN HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 801 of 2019 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus M/S JAY ENTERPRISE Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for Appellant(s) No. 1 for 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 Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short Act, 1961 ) is at instance of Revenue and is directed against order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot dated 30th April, 2019 in IT(SS) No.24/Rjt/2017 for A.Y.2009-10. 2. Revenue has proposed following questions, as substantial questions of law, arising in present appeal; (A) Whether Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts by upholding decision of CIT(A) which deleted addition of Rs.7,93,94,849/- on account of unexplained Cash Credit u/s.68 of Act? (B) Whether Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts by not upholding grounds raised with regard to scope of provisions of Section 153A of Act? (C ) Whether Appellate Tribunal has erred in law by Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 10:34:04 IST 2020 C/TAXAP/801/2019 ORDER not adjudicating matter on merits without first adjudicating legal grounds? 3. We take notice of following findings of fact recorded by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in its impugned order; 5) We have gone through relevant record and impugned order. In this case, search was conducted on 20.5.2015 and proceedings were initiated u/s.153A and during search no incriminating document was found and seized and during assessment proceedings, A.O noticed that assessee has taken 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 appellant and source of 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 premise of assessee and during assessment proceedings, it was noticed by Ld. A.O. that assessee has taken loan from MTPL and assessee has satisfactorily explained reason of said transaction genuineness and rather source of source was also explained. 4. Thus, it appears that search was undertaken on 20 th May, 2013 and proceedings were initiated under Section 153A of Act. In course of search undertaken by Department, nothing incriminating was found or recovered from assessee, and in course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer took notice of fact that assessee had obtained loan of Rs.7.30 Crore from one Manaksia Trexim Pvt. Ltd based at Calcutta. Assessing Officer got matter inquired through Investigating Wing of Calcutta, and inquiry revealed that loan was in fact advanced. source of loan was also explained. Thus, it Page 2 of 3 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 10:34:04 IST 2020 C/TAXAP/801/2019 ORDER was confirmed that assessee had received funds from Manaksia Trexim Pvt. Ltd, one of its own groups. Tribunal also notes that no incriminating document was found and seized from premise of assessee during assessment proceedings. 5. Essentially, there are questions of fact which have been resolved by CIT (A) as affirmed by Tribunal. 6. In such circumstances, we are of view that none of questions formulated in memorandum of appeal, as proposed by Revenue, could be termed as substantial questions of law. 7. In result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) Vahid Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 10:34:04 IST 2020 Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jay Enterprise
Report Error