Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Pune v. Arjun Manoj Purohit Ay 2015 16 ITA 3655 Mum 2023

Chaitanya

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1024 OF 2024 Digitally signed by CHAITANYA ASHOK JADHAV Date:

2025.11.18 18:29:24 +0530 CHAITANYA ASHOK JADHAV Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-Central, Pune ... Appellant

Versus

Arjun Manoj Purohit ... Respondent ______________________________________________________ Mr. Ashok Kotangle, for Appellant.

______________________________________________________ CORAM : M.S. Sonak & Advait M. Sethna, JJ.

DATED : 13 November 2025 PC:- 1.

Heard Mr. Kotangle for the Appellant.

2.

Mr. Kotangle admits that the tax effect in this case is only Rs.2,22,480/-. However, he submits that the Appeal is covered by the exception carved out by the CBDT Circular. 3.

Without going into the issue as to whether the Appeal is covered under the exceptions, we have heard Mr. Kotangle on merits.

4.

Mr. Kotangle proposes the following substantial question of law in support of this Appeal:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in

deleting the addition made by AO being interest paid on the loan taken from M/s. Shipra Fabrics Pvt. Ltd and M/s. Lunkad Textiles Pvt. Ltd. in A.Y. 2015-16 ignoring the fact that the assessee availed accommodation entry from the concerns of Vipul Vidur Bhatt who had categorically accepted in his statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the IT Act." 5.

We have considered Mr. Kotangle's submission, the proposed question, the record and the decision of the ITAT. We are satisfied that the question now proposed can hardly be called as a substantial question of law.

6.

In this case, the Assessing Officer expressed dissatisfaction with the nature and source of investment made by the Assessee and, on that basis, made a disallowance followed by an addition. This order was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the ITAT, upon a detailed examination of the material on record, has reversed the Assessing Officer and ordered the deletion of the additions. 7.

The ITAT is the final fact-finding authority. The discussion on the factual material produced on record is contained in paragraph 6 of the ITAT's impugned order. After detailed consideration of this material, including the statements of the Assessee, the Tribunal has concluded that the Assessee was an individual engaged in the construction business and had filed returns in respect of his rental income, commission/brokerage and short-term capital gain from the sale of land.

8.

Based on the assessment of the documentary evidence on record, the ITAT has concluded that the Assessee has succeeded in establishing the nature and source of Rs. 1.17 crores, which the Assessing Officer noted as having been credited in the books of the Assessee. There is a detailed discussion of the loans and interest payments. The ITAT has also examined the creditworthiness of the parties who had extended loans to the Assessee.

9.

The question now proposed virtually invites us to reassess the factual material on record, an exercise that cannot be undertaken in an Appeal under Section 260 of the IT Act. We are not satisfied that there is any perversity in the findings of fact recorded by the ITAT to warrant the admission of this Appeal.

10.

The ITAT has also relied on the decision of this Court in PCIT V. Paradise Inland Shipping (P.) Ltd.1.

11.

For all the above reasons, we are satisfied that the question now proposed cannot be held to be a substantial question of law warranting the admission of this Appeal. 12.

The Appeal is therefore dismissed without any costs order.

(Advait M. Sethna, J.) (M.S. Sonak, J.) [2017] 84 taxmann.com 58 (Bom)