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