Dr. A.R. Lakshmanan, C.J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. L. M. Lodha for the Department.
(2.) THIS appeal is filed by the Department questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The question posed for our consideration is whether the amount credited to the account of Ramchander Banarsidass is a deposit or a loan or a trading transaction ? The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), on a detailed consideration of the factual matrix of the matter and also the provisions of Section 269T, came to the conclusion that the book entries so made by the respondents with reference to the payment made on its behalf by the other party was at the most a type of accommodation, or loan and not a deposit which otherwise is contemplated by Section 269T. In view of this, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that there was no justification in treating the respondents to have contravened the provisions of Section 269T which otherwise was really not applicable on account of the actual transaction being by way of accommodation in the form of a loan and not a deposit. Section 269T specifically refers to the repayment of deposits whereas the provisions of Section 269SS refer to loans or deposits. This itself, as pointed out by the Commissioner, would indicate that the Legislature had kept in view the subtle distinction between loans and deposits while framing the provisions of Section 269T and Section 269SS. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, on appeal by the Income-tax Officer, confirmed the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Both the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Appellate Tribunal, on consideration of the entire factual circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that it is only a type of loan transaction or a type of accommodation and not a deposit which otherwise is contemplated by Section 269T. When a factual finding is arrived at by the authorities concerned, it is not proper for this court to reappreciate the same and take a different view. In our opinion, there is no justification in treating the transaction in question as a deposit. The respondents, in our opinion, have not contravened the provisions of Section 269T. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. ;