Concurrent findings of fact defeat income-tax challenge where cheques, advance payment, and related-party interest were not satisfactorily proved.

Concurrent factual findings in an income-tax appeal were treated as insufficient to raise a substantial question of law under section 260A. The court found that the assessee had not proved payment through account payee cheques for the purchase transaction, that the claimed advance for a petrol pump purchase was unsupported by the books and reliable evidence, and that interest paid to a related person exceeded the market rate without proof of genuineness or bona fides. On those factual bases, the additions under sections 40A(3) and 40A(2)(b) were maintained and no interference was warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the addition made by invoking section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the footing that the purchase payment was not proved to have been made by account payee cheque, gave rise to a substantial question of law. (ii) Whether the addition on account of hypothetical interest on advance payment for purchase of a petrol pump was liable to be interfered with. (iii) Whether the disallowance made under section 40A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of interest paid at a higher rate to the assessee's mother was liable to be disturbed.

Issue (i): Whether the addition made by invoking section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the footing that the purchase payment was not proved to have been made by account payee cheque, gave rise to a substantial question of law.

Analysis: The addition was sustained by the lower authorities on the factual finding that the assessee failed to establish payment through account payee cheques. The documents relied upon did not satisfactorily connect the alleged cheques with payment on behalf of the assessee, and the ledger material did not show that the cheques were issued to the seller for the assessee's account. These were findings of fact.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose and the addition was upheld against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition on account of hypothetical interest on advance payment for purchase of a petrol pump was liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: The record did not contain any entry in the assessee's books showing the alleged advance as having been paid for purchase of the petrol pump, and even the asserted oral agreement did not explain the absence of such an entry. The concurrent findings treated the claim as unsupported by reliable evidence.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted and the addition was upheld against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the disallowance made under section 40A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of interest paid at a higher rate to the assessee's mother was liable to be disturbed.

Analysis: The authorities found that the interest rate paid by the assessee was higher than the prevalent market rate and that the transaction was not shown to be genuine and bona fide. The challenge sought to convert a factual finding into a legal question, which was not permissible on the record.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose and the disallowance was upheld against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the disputes turned on concurrent findings of fact and did not disclose any substantial question of law for consideration under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings of fact in an income-tax appeal under section 260A do not give rise to interference unless a substantial question of law, supported by perversity or legal error, is shown.

---