CIT Vs. R L TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Admit. The following substantial question of law arises in these batch of appeals i.e. whether the Tribunal's approach in confirming the CIT's order which had deleted the addition made on account of unsecured loans by the Assessing Officer, for the concerned assessment years i.e. 2000-01 to 2006-07 and the interest component, is correct, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the assessee's premises were searched on 13.12.2005, pursuant to which, a notice was issued under Section-153A on 09.07.2007 for the assessment years, 2000-01 to 2006-07. A detailed questionnaire was issued under Section-142 (1)/143 (2) on 29.10.2007. The assessee filed returns thereafter. The firm claimed to have earned NIL income. One of the claims made by the assessee was in respect of unsecured loans obtained from individuals and firms. The assessee was required to file the details of such loans obtained along with complete particulars. After consideration of these, the assessing officer passed separate orders of assessment. Broadly in all the cases, the assessing officer added back the loans except for two years i.e. 2003-04 and 2005-06. In these years, there were no fresh loans taken by the assessee. Assessing Officer in addition disallowed the interest component for all the years and added back an amount of Rs. 5 Lakh of unexplained cash. This Court is not inclined to go into the other aspect vis-a-vis unexplained cash and gross profit addition which have been dealt with by the CIT (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal. The assessee had declared a gross profit depending and based on the peculiar circumstances of each case. With regard to the rate of gross profit and unexplained cash, the decision of the Tribunal is factual and no substantial question of law arises.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the Revenue contends that the CIT (Appeals)' order is bereft of any reasoning. Apart from reciting the submissions of the assessee's appeal, the CIT (A) did not furnish any independent reasons to displace the inference and reasoning given by the Assessing Officer. This plainly amounted to perverse and unreasonable approach which called for interference by the ITAT. Learned counsel also relied upon two remand reports said to have been called by the CIT (Appeals) during the pendency of the assessee's appeals before him. They are dated 27.01.2009 and 26.05.2009. It was contended that these remand reports bore out the assessing officer's inferences and conclusions that the unsecured loans had to be added back and could not be allowed as claimed by the assessee.