1 - . 52 2002 Income tax Appeal No of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ----- - . 52 2002 Income Tax Appeal No of : 14.7.2010 Date of decision , . / . Gian Chand Jain Proprietor M s Jain Electric and Hardware Store Panchkula --- Appellant Versus , . - - , , . Income Tax Officer Hry Salary cum Coy Ward Chandigarh --- Respondent --- : . CORAM HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL . HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- : PRESENT . , Mr Pankaj Jain Advocate . for the appellant . , Mr Yogesh Putney Senior Standing - . Counsel for the respondent Department --- 2 - . 52 2002 Income tax Appeal No of , . AJAY KUMAR MITTAL J The assessee has approached this Court under 260- - , 1961 ( “ Section A of the Income tax Act in short the ) Act’ and has prayed that the following substantial questions , of law arise in this appeal for the consideration of this Court - , from the order of the Income tax Appellate Tribunal , ( “ ) Chandigarh Bench Chandigarh for short the Tribunal” 17.9.2001, - . passed on in Income tax Appeal No 1096/ /1994 1992-93: CHD for the assessment year 1- Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case ITAT was justified in law by upholding the squared up accounts of Deepak Chadha for a loan . 9,500/-, . 9,000/-, of Rs Pardeep Kumar Rs . 9,000/- . Som Nath Rs and Darshan Singh Rs 6,000/- as income from undisclosed sources of the appellant only on the basis that the appellant . has not produced them before the ld Assessing . Authority 3 - . 52 2002 Income tax Appeal No of 2- , That on the facts and circumstances of the case whether ITAT was justified in law by interpreting 68 - the provisions of Section of the Income Tax , 1961 . Act in maintaining the addition of Rs 1,08,500/- on account of various unsecured loan as mentioned in the order against each person as . assessee’s income from undisclosed sources ” The assessee filed return for the assessment 1992-93 . 18,850/-. year declaring an income of Rs The , , 143(3) , assessment after scrutiny under Section of the Act . 2,56,010/-, was finally concluded at an income of Rs vide 24.2.1994. , , order dated The assessing officer amongst others made addition in declared income on account of squared up , , account of Deepak Chadha Pardeep Kumar Som Nath and . , Darshan Singh Besides this an addition on account of unexplained cash credit on account of unsecured loans . 1,08,500/- amounting to Rs was also made under Section 68 . of the Act The assessee carried appeal before the - ( ) [( “ ( )] . Commissioner of Income tax Appeals for short CIT A ” . The appeal was partly allowed The assessee still took up 4 - . 52 2002 Income tax Appeal No of . , matter before the Tribunal The Tribunal as well concurred with the findings of the authorities below and consequently , - - dismissed the assessee’s appeal in so far as the challenge , 17.9.2001. on the above count is concerned vide order dated .1 Regarding Question No . The issue that arises for consideration in this Court , - is whether the squared up cash credits in the names of four , , , , persons namely Deepak Chadha Pardeep Kumar Som Nath , . 9,500/-, 9,000/-, and Darshan Singh amounting to Rs 9,000/- 6,000/- and respectively were to be treated as genuine and could not form part of the assessee’s income . , from undisclosed sources The assessing officer while , considering the genuineness of the above amounts observed that the assessee had not produced the said persons to prove the genuineness of the unsecured loans and , . . consequently added the aforesaid four amounts i e total . 33,500/- . amount of Rs to the income of the assessee - ( ) The appellant assessee contended before the CIT A that no sufficient opportunity was provided to it to produce aforesaid , , four persons for verification and thus the addition of 5 - . 52 2002 Income tax Appeal No of - squared up accounts and unsecured loans treated as . ( ), unexplained cash credits was not justified The CIT A while , upholding the finding of the assessing officer recorded as : under “2.4. I have carefully examined the rival . submissions After examination of the assessment , records maintained by the AO I find that the facts . stated by the appellant are not correct In fact the -2 facts stated by the AO in para of his . 23.12.1993, assessment order are correct On the appellant had categorically stated before the AO as : under “ Shri Deepak Chadha and Shri Pardeep , , Kumar are not traceable and therefore cannot be . , produced As regards Shri Jarnail Singh and . Suman Jain seek time to produce ” 4.1.1994 . . , Again on Shri G C Jain himself along : with his counsel stated before the AO as under “ , that following persons are not traceable and , : therefore cannot be produced 6 - . 52 2002 Income tax Appeal No of - i . Sh Som Nath - ii . Sh Darshan Singh” 2.5 , 4 Therefore all the above said creditors were never produced by the appellant and in fact he had categorically stated that they were . untraceable When as per assessee’s own , admission these creditors were untraceable it was not just possible to give their latest addresses and no such addresses were ever given by the . , appellant to the AO Therefore I have no hesitation in holding that the appellant had neither proved the identity nor the capacity of these creditors nor the factum of actual passing of cash . was proved The AO had correctly involved the 68 provisions of section and added this amount of . 33,500/- . Rs to the income of the appellant This , , . addition is therefore upheld ” The above finding was affirmed by the . Tribunal in the appeal preferred by the assessee Learned counsel for the assessee has now sought to challenge the 7 - . 52 2002 Income tax Appeal No of - said finding on the ground that the non production of the above four persons could not be a ground for treating the . income to be from undisclosed sources of the assessee In , . our view the contention does not carry any weight This is a finding of fact recorded by the authorities below that the cash credits were not genuine and it was to be treated as . income of the assessee from undisclosed sources Once the assessee was unable to produce those persons from whom , he had shown the above squared up cash credits the inference drawn by the authorities below cannot be said to be . perverse .2. Regarding Question No , Now adverting to the second question whether the assessing officer was right in treating the unsecured loan to 68 various persons as unexplained cash credits under Section ? , of the Act The Tribunal while upholding the finding of the ( ) , :- CIT A in this regard recorded as under “ I have gone through the submissions advanced on . behalf of the assessee It is strange that most of . 19,000/- the creditors have given loans of Rs to 8 - . 52 2002 Income tax Appeal No of . the assessee This obviously has been done to 269 hoodwink the provisions of section SS of - Income tax Act which prohibits receipt of cash . 20,000/- . . . deposit of Rs or more The A O and , ( ) on appeal the CIT A have held that these creditors had no capacity to advance loans to the . assessee This conclusion has been reached after examining source of income of the creditors and . their family status In reaching the above conclusion all relevant and material facts have been taken into . account I have nothing before me to take a view . contrary to the one taken by the lower authorities , Therefore these cash credits cannot be treated as . provided in accordance with law The Revenue authorities were justified in treating cash credits as . assessee’s income from undisclosed sources In , the same way they were fully justified in not . 14,000/- accepting addition of Rs to the capital . account of the assessee as genuine The amount was introduced from an undisclosed source and 9 - . 52 2002 Income tax Appeal No of . was rightly added to the income of the assessee , , Thus additions referred to above were rightly . . ( ). made by the A O and confirmed by the CIT A I agree with them and uphold their orders on these . credits ” The above again being a finding of fact , against which no misreading could be shown no interference . is called for by this Court Learned counsel for the appellant - made an unsuccessful attempt to persuade this Court to re appreciate the evidence and record a finding in favour of the . assessee We are not inclined to accede to the submission . - , made by the counsel Re appraisal of evidence without , reference to any material which had been misread does not 260- . fall within the domain of Section A of the Act No substantial question of law arises in this appeal , , for consideration of this Court and the appeal is therefore . dismissed ( ) AJAY KUMAR MITTAL JUDGE 10 - . 52 2002 Income tax Appeal No of ( ADARSH KUMAR ) GOEL 14, 2010 July JUDGE * * rkmalik