IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M. No.21136-CII of 2008 in I.T.A. No.642 of 2008 Date of decision: 15.12.2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-Faridabad. -----Appellant Vs. M/s Shree Motors Pvt. Ltd. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present:- Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. ----- ORDER: Delay condoned. The revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- A. “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the order of Ld. CIT(A) who had deleted the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- made by Assessing Officer u/s 68 of Income Tax Act and addition of Rs.45,880/- in respect of interest on cash credit, by holding that the identity of creditor company has been proved whereas the creditor company had not filed its I.T.A. No.642 of 2008 returns of income for Asstt. Years 1996-97, 1997-98 and no whereabouts of the company were available.” B. “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer, though the assessee failed to discharge the onus to prove the creditworthiness of creditor company and genuineness of transaction?” The Assessing officer declared entries of cash credit in the account books of the assessee to be its income. On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the contention of the assessee that the credit entries were genuine. The identity of the creditor was disclosed and the payment was through cheque. The Tribunal upheld the said view. It was observed that the assessee proved the identity of the creditor, its creditworthiness as well as genuineness of the transaction. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. In view of concurrent findings of CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal as to genuineness of the transaction, credit worthiness and identity of the creditor being established, we are unable to hold that any substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE December 15, 2008 ( L. N. MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2