1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 97 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax ...Appellant Versus Jamnadas M. Choksi Jewellers ... Respondents. Mr. B.M. Chaterjee for the Appellant Mr. Pramodkumar Parida for the Respondents. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. DATE : JULY 28, 2008 P.C.:- The question of law framed in the Memo of Appeal is as follows:- “Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned ITAT was right in deleting the addition of Rs.14,50,000/- being the unexplained cash credit and interest thereon of Rs.2,50,757/-?” Whether the amount was deducted or could have been added to the income has been considered in paragraph 7 of the order of the Tribunal. Paragraph 7 reads as under:- 2 “Having heard both the sides, we have carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. Rival submissions were considered. Admittedly, the addition made by the AO on the basis of the affidavit given by Shri Y.J. Chokshi and the fact that the summons could not be served upon the cash creditors. We find that all the transactions are through account payee cheques and the conformations from the creditors have been furnished before the AO. All the cash creditors are assessed to tax and the assessee furnished all the details before the AO. The assessee was not allowed to cross examine Shri Y.J. Chokshi and therefore, in the absence of such opportunity, the affidavit of Shri Y.J. Chokshi cannot be used against the assessee. Shri Y.J. Chokshi made a disclosure of income of Rs.1 crore in his own case which shows that he had the financial capacity to advance loans. Keeping in view the totality of Rs.1 crore in his own case which (sic) shows that he had the financial capacity to advance loans. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the CIT (A) has given cogent reason for deleting the addition of Rs.14,50,000/- including interest of Rs.2,50,757/-. We, therefore, decline to interfere.” Reading the above paragraph, it is very clear that the question framed is not at all a question of law. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. BILAL NAZKI, J. A.A. KUMBHAKONI, J. 3