Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) THE instant appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the order dt. 19th Jan., 2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'SMC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal') in ITA No. 4135/Del/2005 in case of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1993 -94, by raising the following substantial question of law: 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in sustaining an aggregate addition of Rs. 2,50,000, representing the loans and share capital investment, as unexplained cash credit?
(2.) IN the present case, the AO framed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act while making an addition of Rs. 2,85,000 on the ground that the appellant has failed to prove the creditworthiness of the creditors, namely Mrs. Sukha Goyal, Mr. Lav Goyal and Smt. Sumita Shekhar, and the genuineness of the transactions of loan and Investments made by those creditors. The said order was challenged in appeal by the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)'], vide its order dt. 22nd Aug., 2005, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the addition made by the AO.
(3.) AGGRIEVED against the said order, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal, which was allowed in part vide order dt. 19th Jan., 2007 and the addition of Rs. 35,000 on account of unsecured loan of Smt. Sumita Shekhar, sustained by the CIT(A), was deleted. However, the finding recorded by the AO that the assessee failed to establish the source of income, genuineness and creditworthiness of Mrs. Shikha Goyal, Mr. Lav Goyal was confirmed.;