Madhya Pradesh H.C : This is an appeal preferred by the assessee, with respect to asst. yr. 1990-91 against order passed by Tribunal. Income of Rs. 1,29,607 was shown by the assessee/appellant whereas the Income-tax Officer (for short the ‘ITO’) assessed his income at Rs. 3,37,990.

Counsel Appeared

B.L. Nema with Kum. S. Agrawal, for the Appellant : Rohit Arya, for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

ARUN MISHRA, J. :

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee, with respect to asst. yr. 1990-91 against order passed by Tribunal. Income of Rs. 1,29,607 was shown by the assessee/appellant whereas the Income-tax Officer (for short the ‘ITO’) assessed his income at Rs. 3,37,990. Addition of Rs. 1,75,000 was made treating the credit taken from Shri Sonelal Jain as unexplained. An appeal was preferred by the appellant/assessee before the CIT(A), Jabalpur, who deleted the addition so made by the ITO. Aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A), the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal (for short Tribunal). Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and ordered an addition of Rs. 75,000 as against addition of Rs. 1,75,000 made by ITO. In the present appeal the question which has been agitated is that the addition of Rs. 75,000 by the Tribunal is bad in law, since taking the loan was supported by the bank transaction. Thus, learned senior counsel Shri B.L. Nema submits that the addition of Rs. 75,000 is bad in law. It is his further submission that Shri Sonelal Jain was having an agriculture income from 33.24 acres of agricultural land owned by him and as a matter of fact, he had purchased the house property subsequent to the transaction. Thus, addition of Rs. 75,000 by Tribunal is bad in law and that finding recorded is perverse. Hence, aforementioned substantial questions of law arise in the present appeal for its consideration. After going through the record and hearing the learned counsel at length, it is clear that a loan of Rs. 75,000 is said to be advanced on 6th Nov., 1989. On the next day i.e., 7th Nov., 1989, the amount is said to be returned back by the assessee to Shri Sonelal Jain. With respect to arrangement of this amount of Rs. 75,000 it has been found by the ITO that credit of Rs. 50,000 in account of Shri Sonelal Jain was made. On 4th Nov., 1989, credit entry of Rs. 25,000 was made. A letter, dt. 30th Jan., 1992, from Central Bank of India shows that the above credit entries of Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 25,000 were transfer entries from Jabalpur Bank brought from one Rajkumar. Thus, Shri Sonelal Jain was not having the money of his own and if the transaction was his own transaction and had the assessee required the money of Rs. 75,000 on 6th Nov., 1989 then there was absolutely nothing to return it next very day i.e., 7th Nov., 1989. Thus, in the circumstances it has been found that the entry was manipulated one and no amount of Rs. 75,000 was advanced. From the statement of Shri Sonelal Jain, it is clear that to the question put to him that why the money was returned next very day, he simply stated that the assessee did not require the money. If the assessee did not require the money there was (no) reason for taking the loan on 6th Nov., 1989. Thus, it is clear that the addition of Rs. 75,000 which have been made due to loan transaction, is clearly justified. The finding which has been recorded about unexplained income is purely a finding of fact. Simply by the fact that the transaction of Rs. 1 lac was accepted out of Rs. 1,75,000, it cannot be taken that error has been committed by addition of Rs. 75,000, since the transactions were of different dates. Finding is not shown to be perverse in any manner. It appears to have been arrived at in a reasonable manner in exercise of prudence of a reasonable man. Hence, the finding is not assailable in the present appeal and no substantial question of law arises forconsideration by this Court, so as to warrant admission of the present appeal.

5. Thus, the appeal raises no substantial question of law. The same is dismissed.

[Citation : 251 ITR 559]