DBITA NO.107/10. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.107/2010. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur. Vs. M/s.Bhawani Oil Mills P.Ltd., Jaipur. Date of order : 20/10/2010. HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri R.B. Mathur for the revenue-appellant. ****** (Per Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mohammad Rafiq) This income tax appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the judgment of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, "ITAT") dated 22/5/2009 by which, appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (for short, "CIT(A)") was partly allowed and the cash credit of Rs.24,86,866/- claimed by the assessee, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer, was allowed and the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the addition of the said amount made under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act. Shri R.B. Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that the ITAT was wholly unjustified in reversing the order of the Assessing Officer, which was reasoned and based on correct DBITA NO.107/10. 2 appreciation of documents and material on record. While ITAT has not given any good reason to take a different view, Assessing Officer has given detailed reasons for assessment by disallowing the cash credit amounting to Rs.24,86,866/- alleged to have been taken from eight different persons as 'unsecured loan'. Claim made by the assessee in his Return to that effect was rightly disallowed by the Assessing Officer because when notice was given to such eight persons, only one of them, namely, K.K. Sharma appeared in response to the notice under Section 131 and made statement on 27/2/2002. Explanation was unsatisfactory raising doubt about number of facts as to how and in what manner he secured the said money. Explanation that was given was that he received Rs.2 lacs from his grand-father out of which, Rs.1 lac was taken back by his grand-father and his grand-father received this money from sale of the property but he failed to prove as to whom this property was sold. No details of property was furnished. Although, other persons did not appear in response to the notice before the Assessing Officer but they filed confirmations by way of affidavits admitting advancement of loan to assessee. Unless, it was proved that those persons, were capable of earning such money from known sources and could advance the loan, claim made by the assessee could not be accepted on its mere ipse-dixit. CIT (Appeals) rightly upheld the order passed by the Assessing Officer. ITAT however erred in law in allowing the DBITA NO.107/10. 3 appeal to that extent on ground No.2. We have heard learned counsel for the revenue and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the order passed by the ITAT, we find that mere non-appearance of eight other persons in response to the notice given of the Assessing Officer, by itself cannot be a reason to discard their version particularly when one of them had appeared and admitted advancement of loan. Even if others have subsequently filed their confirmations supported by their affidavits, it cannot be assumed that they would not have made same statements, if they had appeared in response to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer. Assessing Officer was required to have examined those confirmations and the contents of the affidavits on their merits treating as if they were statements given to him. Their version contained in the affidavits could not be treated as of a lesser importance than the statement given by one of the creditors i.e. Shri K.K. Sharma before the Assessing Officer. Although, it is another matter that the Assessing Officer would be entitled to evaluate reability of such version on its own merit. Even otherwise, we find that quantum of amount of Rs.24,86,866/- found to have been borrowed from eight different creditors by way of 'unsecured loan' to the tune of Rs.3,25,000/- each from two creditors, Rs.3,00,000/- from one creditor, Rs.1,00,000/- each from four creditors and DBITA NO.107/10. 4 Rs.11,36,866/- from one creditor. Maximum amount that has been borrowed by assessee, was Rs.11,36,866/- from Shri K.K. Sharma, Director of the Company. ITAT in paras 7 and 8 of its judgment, which is running into four pages, has in detailed discussion dealt with the confirmations given by those creditors and observed that there was no reason to doubt correctness of the claimed cash credit amounting to Rs.24,86,866/- taken from the abovenamed creditors. In our view, the matter therefore touches upon appreication and evaluation of evidence and does not raise any question of law, muchless any substantial of law, so as to justify interference by this Court in the matter. Appeal being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed in limine. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. (ARUN MISHRA), J. anil/-