SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) THE instant appeal filed by the Revenue under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), is (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), in ITA No. 4878/Del/2004, in the case of the respondent for the asst. yr. 1997 -98, by raising the following substantial questions of law : "(i) 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) in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,53,500 on account of unexplained cash credits ? (ii) 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) in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,00,000 made by the AO, on account of unexplained investment in purchase of a bus ? (iii) 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) in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,87,696 made by the AO, on account of unexplained loans shown in the names of M/s Tata Finance Co. and M/s Super Travels by entertaining Additional. evidence, which was not produced before the AO during the assessment proceedings contrary to the provisions of r. 46A of the IT Rules ? perverse as the findings recorded are contrary to evidence on record ? (v) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Tribunal is legally sustainable in the eyes of law as no reasons whatsoever have been recorded while dismissing the appeal of the Revenue -
(2.) IN the present case, the AO, while framing the assessment of the assessee made certain additions on different grounds. Subsequently, the assessee filed an application for rectification. While allowing the said application, some of the additions were deleted. Thereafter, feeling aggrieved against the remaining additions made by the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals), Karnal [hereinafter referred to as "the CIT(A)"], who, vide his order dt. 14th Sep., 2004, while deleting the said additions, came to the conclusion that the documents relating to the loans were produced by the assessee before the AO during rectification proceedings, but the same were not considered on the ground that there is no mistake apparent on the record. Against the said order, the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal, raising the following grounds : (i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,53,500 on account of unexplained cash credits as the assessee failed to produce the alleged creditors before the AO in spite of being given opportunity and the identity of the creditors remained unproved. (ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,00,000 made by the AO on account of unexplained investment in purchase of a bus. (iii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,87,696 made on account of unexplained loans shown in the names of M/s Tata Finance Co. and M/s Super Travels by entertaining additional evidence which was not produced before the AO during the assessment proceedings contrary to the provisions of r. 46A of the IT Rules.
(3.) REGARDING ground No. 1, the Tribunal has affirmed the order of the CIT(A) while observing that the creditors were produced and their statements were recorded and in their statements, the creditors have confirmed having advanced loans to the assessee. It was held that in view of this material, the AO was not justified in making addition of Rs. 1,53,500 on account of unexplained cash credits. Regarding ground No. 2, it was observed that the AO estimated the value of vehicles like bus, mini bus, etc., at Rs. 11 lakhs as against Rs. 10 lakhs offered by the assessee, without there being any basis to arrive at such conclusion. Therefore, it was found that the CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1 lakh on that account. Regarding ground No. 3, it was observed that the assessee has produced sufficient documents during the appellate proceedings to show that the loan shown in the name of M/s Tata Finance Co. and M/s Super Travels has been received from these parties, therefore, there was no justification to add this amount on account of unexplained loans. In our opinion, in this appeal, no substantial question of law is arising, as the Tribunal has affirmed the finding of fact recorded by the CIT(A), while taking into consideration the material available on the record. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere in this appeal.;