VIVEK VARMA,J. - (1.) The batch of appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax, Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act") arises out of order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 12.07.2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") by which the Tribunal had decided seven appeals being I.T.A. Nos. 1623/Del/2017, 1624/Del/2017 1625/Del/2017, 1626/Del/2017, 1627/Del/2017, 1628/Del/2017, 1629/Del/2017, 1630/Del/2017 1631/Del/2017 in respect of assessment year 2005-06.
(2.) The dispute in all these appeals essentially relates to the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Since in all these appeals the facts and issue involved are common, therefore, all the appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by a common order as it is admitted by the parties that the decision on the questions referred below, would necessarily govern the other appeals. The appeal in the case of Sajid Khan, being Income Tax Appeal No. 14 of 2019 is taken as the leading appeal.
(3.) The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (a) Whether on a proper construction of law, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal did not commit error of law in dismissing the appeal of the assessee/appellant, by holding that the creditworthiness of the creditors, advancing loan to the assessee was not established, ignoring vital fact that the said creditors were also blood relatives and family members of the assessee and the transaction was undertaken through banking channel ? (b) Whether the loan received by a person from his mother, brother or other blood relatives in absence of any cogent evidence to the contrary and merely on conjectures be doubted citing the creditworthiness or genuineness of the transaction as suspicious, particularly when the whereabouts are not disputed ? (c) Whether in any circumstances once the identity of the creditors is established beyond doubt any addition is sustainable under Section 68 in relation to loan in the hands of the appellant ? (d) Whether the impugned order of the ITAT is highly cryptic and non speaking in nature and hence unsustainable in law; cases of different assesses involving different facts have been adjudicated in one stroke or brush ? (e) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding the decision in the case of Suman Gupta Vs ITO, applicable to the assesse's case ? (f) Whether the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal was based on conjecture, surmises or suspicion or on a failure to consider relevant evidence on the record ? ;