- (1.) This appeal is preferred to challenge the order dated 27.09.2013 passed by learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur. The appellant has suggested the following three substantial questions of law :- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.80,49,831/- made on account of unexplained cash credit as the assessee failed to discharge his burden to prove the three conditions in satisfactory manner to the AO in light of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT, 1995 214 ITR 801 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,08,709/- being interest expenses towards alleged unsecured loan from Anchal Associates which was held as unexplained cash credit by the AO 3. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in upholding the decision of ld. CIT (A) in restraining the addition made on account of interest paid on unsecured loans of Rs.16,19,365/- to Rs.5,02,368/- despite of the fact that the assessee has not given any explanation and failed to justify that the said interest expenses have been incurred wholly & exclusively for the purpose of its business
(2.) From perusal of the facts stated and the order passed by learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, it is apparent that the assessee explained the receipt of amount by producing relevant books of acounts, vouchers etc. with source and supporting evidence etc. The list of such details was also available on record as Annexure-2. The documents produced before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal were found sufficient to explain the source and transactions alongwith adequate evidence. The transactions were also found genuine, bonafide and for business purposes. The Assessing Officer did not consider the evidence adduced in the form of Annexure-2. It is pertinent to notice that as per the Tribunal, the assessee fully explained identify of the persons, genuineness of the transactions, having source of fund and creditworthiness of the Aanchal Associates.
(3.) The only argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal being an appellate authority should have examined genuineness of the documents aforesaid and should have referred the matter to the Assessing Officer for that purpose.;