Section 260A appeals on unsecured loans fail where section 68 is discharged and factual findings remain concurrent.

In a section 260A appeal, concurrent findings that an assessee has proved the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of an unsecured loan creditor under section 68 will not be disturbed absent perversity or misreading of evidence. The record referred to PAN details, income-tax returns, bank statements, audited accounts, NBFC registration, TDS records and repayment through banking channels, which supported discharge of the section 68 onus. The appeal was also barred from merits consideration because the proposed questions were factual and the tax effect was below the prescribed CBDT monetary limit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the deletion of the addition made under section 68 on account of unsecured loans called for interference under section 260A; (ii) Whether any substantial question of law arose in view of the concurrent factual findings and the low tax effect.

Issue (i): Whether the deletion of the addition made under section 68 on account of unsecured loans called for interference under section 260A.

Analysis: The assessee had produced material to establish the identity of the lender, its creditworthiness and the genuineness of the loan transactions, including PAN details, return of income, bank statements, audited accounts, NBFC registration, TDS records and evidence of repayment through banking channels. The fact that the credits in earlier years were carried forward also supported the view that the disputed amount was not entirely a fresh unexplained credit for the year under consideration. The appellate authorities concurrently found the lender to be a genuine entity and held that the onus under section 68 had been discharged. No perversity or misreading of evidence was shown.

Conclusion: The deletion of the addition under section 68 was upheld and no interference was warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether any substantial question of law arose in view of the concurrent factual findings and the low tax effect.

Analysis: The appeal challenged only concurrent findings on facts, and the Court found that the proposed questions were factual in nature rather than substantial questions of law. The tax effect was also below the prescribed monetary limit under the applicable CBDT circular, which independently supported non-entertainment of the appeal.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose and the appeal was not maintainable for consideration on merits.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed at the admission stage, and the assessee's relief as granted by the appellate authorities remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a section 260A appeal, concurrent findings that the assessee has established the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of a loan creditor cannot be disturbed absent perversity, and a further bar arises where the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit.

---