DINESH MAHESHWARI, J. - (1.) THIS appeal by the revenue under Section 260 -A of the Income -Tax Act, 1961 ['the Act'] is directed against the common order dated 18.10.2004 as passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur ['the Tribunal'] in cross - appeals [ITA Nos. 50/JU/2002 and 73/JU/2002], filed respectively by the assessee and the revenue.
(2.) THIS appeal has its genesis in the assessment order dated 30.03.2001 relating to the respondent -assessee for the assessment year 1994 -1995, as passed under Sections 143(3)/148 of the Act, whereby the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Bhilwara ['the Assessing Officer'/'the AO'] disallowed the cash credits and interest thereupon, as pertaining to 28 different creditors; and made the addition of an amount of Rs.17,85,243/ - in the total income of the assessee. However, by the order dated 08.11.2001, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ajmer ['the CIT(A)'] partly allowed the appeal [No. 149/2001 -2002] preferred by the assessee and deleted the addition relating to 25 creditors. Then, by the impugned common order dated 18.10.2004, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue and maintained the order passed by the CIT(A) in relation to the said 25 creditors; and, while partly allowing the appeal filed by the assessee, further deleted the additions as made in relation to 2 of the creditors and remitted the matter to the AO in relation to the remaining 1 creditor. In this appeal, the revenue has assailed the deletions as made by the CIT(A), which have been affirmed by the Tribunal and further deletions as made by the Tribunal while asserting that the Assessing Officer had rightly made the additions on account of unexplained cash credits. This appeal came to be admitted on 03.04.2006 on the following substantial question of law: - "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal is justified in law in deleting the additions as above made by the A.O. on account of unexplained cash credits holding that the assessee has submitted the accounts of returns, computation of income and balance sheets of creditors and also supplied information of income tax ward, etc., whereas the Assessing Officer on scrutiny of bank accounts of creditors found as a fact that the creditors deposited cash equal to the loan amount on the date of giving loans and on examination of some of the creditors the source of cash was not satisfactorily explained and the confirmations of all the creditors furnished by the assessee were also stereo typed?" The learned counsel for the appellant -revenue has argued that the Assessing Officer made the additions on relevant considerations when source of the credit in dispute was not satisfactorily explained; and deletion thereof by the appellate authorities had not been justified. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent -assessee has argued that no substantial question of law is involved in this case when the CIT(A) and the Tribunal have deleted the questioned additions after proper appreciation of the record and on sound reasonings; and that the question as formulated is purely a question relating to facts. In this regard, the learned counsel has referred to several of the decisions including those in CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78.
(3.) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, we are inclined to uphold the contentions urged on behalf of the respondent -assessee and in consequence, to dismiss this appeal.;