ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. - (1.) THE Revenue has preferred this appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') against the order of the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi in ITA No. 1975/Del/2004 for the asst. yr. 2000 -01, proposing to raise following substantial question of law : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A), deleting the addition of Rs. 10,50,000 made by the AO under s. 68 of the IT Act, 1961 -
(2.) THE AO made addition to the declared amount of the assessee by Rs. 10,50,000 treating the amount of cash credit to be an unexplained income. The CIT(A) reversed the finding of the AO and held that there was no ground for the addition and there was nothing to doubt the genuineness of credit entries. The Tribunal upheld the said finding and observed : "After hearing the submissions we are of the view that while deciding the appeal to asst. yr. 2001 -02, the CIT(A) has considered the relevant assessment record and submissions of the appellant. He has held that since the persons were produced before the AO which proved their identity. He has also observed that these creditors have also sufficiently explained the sources regarding the deposit in their bank account, the transactions were from the bank account, none of the depositors were remotely related to the appellant and he held that the creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Department has accepted this finding of the CIT(A) and has not filed an appeal against the order. In such a situation we have no alternate but to confirm the order of the CIT(A) in this year also."
(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the Revenue and perused the record. It was submitted that the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment of the subsequent year, which has been referred to by the Tribunal was in respect of interest.;