1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG.) NO.2953 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax 18 – ..Appellant. Vs. M/s. R.D. Investment ..Respondent. .... Mr. A.S. Shivsharan for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. 5th February, 2010. P.C. : 1. The office objections are waived and the Appeal is directed to be numbered. 2. The following two questions have been raised in the Appeal by the revenue : (a) “ Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon ble Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of ’ Rs.89,22,394/- being unexplained credits in the name of sundry creditors without appreciating the provision of Rule 46-A of IT Rules? (b) Whether in the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon ble Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowances ’ of bank interest of Rs12,24,078/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee had not charged any interest on the debit balances of the partners?” 2 3. Insofar as the first question is concerned, the Tribunal has noted that the assessee had given a confirmation from the parties and that the loans taken from the concerned parties were outstanding since 2001. All the parties were in existence over a long period of time and were related or business associates of the assessee. The details in respect of the Balance-sheet were available on the record. No loans were taken during the course of the year in question. Insofar as the second question is concerned, the Tribunal has observed that the debit balance in the account of the partners was on account of the losses incurred in assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03. The assessee had received interest free loans amount to Rs.89 lacs and the partners had not withdrawn any amount from the accounts of the firm. The Tribunal in these circumstances confirmed the order of the CIT(A) inasmuch as the CIT had ordered the deletion of the additions made under the aforesaid two heads. There is a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal and no substantial question of law arises. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. (Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)