ORDER : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. This Tax Appeal is filed by the appellant - Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) arising out of the order dated 16th November 2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Ahmedabad (for short, “the Tribunal”) in ITA No.1213/Ahd/2018 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The appellant – Revenue has proposed the following substantial questions of law for the consideration of this Court: “(A) Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.108.97 Crores made by the AO u/s. 68 of the Act? (B) Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.59,69,58,528/- made on account of non-genuine purchase? (C) Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.10,04,170/- made on account of cash credit? (D) Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,17,346/- made by the AO u/s. 361(1)(iii) of the Act?” 3. The respondent – assessee company is engaged in the business of trading of edible oil / non-edible oil and is also acting as a Commission Agent. 4. M/s. N. K. Proteins Limited is a registered member of National Sport Exchange Limited (NSEL) and the respondent – assessee had become the client of M/s. N. K. Proteins Limited for carrying out trading activity on the platform of NSEL. 5. The assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 142(2A) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2011-12 was passed on 24th November 2014 by making the following addition / disallowance: “a. Addition of Rs.108,97,00,000/- on account of unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Act. b. Addition of Rs.59,69,58,528/- on account of non genuine purchase. c. Addition of Rs.10,04,170/- on account of cash credit. e. Disallowance of Rs.3,17,346/- on account of interest expense claimed by the assessee u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act.” 6. Being aggrieved, the respondent – assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal by confirming the addition / disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 7. The respondent – assessee, therefore, preferred appeal before the Tribunal. e. Disallowance of Rs.3,17,346/- on account of interest expense claimed by the assessee u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act.” 6. Being aggrieved, the respondent – assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal by confirming the addition / disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 7. The respondent – assessee, therefore, preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by common judgement and order passed in the case of M/s. N. K. Proteins Limited for the Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent – assessee for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 8. So far as question No.1 with regard to deleting addition of Rs.108.97 Crores made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act is concerned, the Assessing Officer made addition of the said amount as the respondent – assessee received it on account of transaction of sales made on NSEL. The assesse company accounted the sales of Rs.108.97 Crores in its books of account as income and therefore, the Assessing Officer could not have treated the same as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act as it would amount to double addition of the same amount which is not permissible. 9. It is also not in dispute that the amount in question was received by the assessee from NSEL’s client through its broker M/s. N. K. Proteins Limited and the same was directly received by cheque in HDFC bank account. 10. The Tribunal has, therefore, arrived at a finding of fact that the amount in question received by the respondent – assessee against sale through NSEL was utilized for making payment against the purchase which was treated as unexplained cash credit which could not have been unexplained cash credit. 11. The Tribunal also considered the fact that the similar amount received by the assessee for the relevant Assessment Year 2012-13 was not considered as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act and completed assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal has also considered the fact that the similar issue involved in the case of M/s. N. K. Proteins Limited for the Assessment Year 2011-12 and the Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the assessee by deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A). 12. The Tribunal has also considered the fact that the similar issue involved in the case of M/s. N. K. Proteins Limited for the Assessment Year 2011-12 and the Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the assessee by deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A). 12. Considering the above, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has deleted the addition of Rs.108.97 Crores after taking into consideration the fact that the said amount is already accounted in the books of account of the respondent – assessee and therefore, such addition has rightly been deleted by the Tribunal by arriving at a finding of fact that the respondent - assessee has received the said amount in the bank account which was utilized for purchase for making transaction in NSEL. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant, relying upon the observations made by the Assessing Officer in paras 8.2 to 8.6 in the assessment order referring to the statement of Shri Nilesh Patel recorded during the course of certain proceedings under Section 133 of the Act wherein it is stated that the transaction on NSEL’s platform were only financial in nature and are not in the nature of actual sales and purchase transaction. It was, therefore, contended by learned advocate Mr. Sanghani that there was no actual sale and purchase transaction which is ignored by the Tribunal. 13. It was also pointed out by learned advocate Mr. Sanghani that the Assessing Officer has clearly established that the receipt of Rs.108.97 Crores is credited in the ledger account of IBMA and the same was not in sale receipt of NSEL platform, but it was in the nature of unexplained cash credit and liable to be taxed under Section 68 of the Act. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer has given cogent reason to the effect that the respondent – assessee company is systematically carrying out such activity from Financial Year 2009-10 and it was exposed that NSEL was not able to pay its investors and there was no goods and stock in the warehouse of NSEL. 14. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. 14. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. B. S. Soparkar for the respondent – assessee submitted that the Tribunal has rightly deleted the addition of Rs.108.97 Crores considering that the respondent – assessee has added the said amount as income by way of sale on NSEL and if any addition is made under Section 68 of the Act, it would amount to double addition as held by the Tribunal. 15. Considering the facts of the case, it is not disputed by the appellant – Revenue that the amount of Rs.108.97 Crores is credited in sales account offering as income by the respondent – assessee and therefore, addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act was rightly deleted. 16. With regard to the question No.2 of deleting addition of Rs.59.70 Crores made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of non-genuine purchases, the Tribunal again arrived at a finding of fact on the basis of the Special Audit Report, wherein it is pointed out that the respondent – assessee had shown purchase of Cotton Wash Oil (CWO) amounting to Rs.59.70 Crores more than the sales shown by M/s. N. K. Proteins Limited. The Assessing Officer, however, ignored that explanation given by the assessee that the quantity and value of purchases of CWO is reconciled and there is no difference. The Tribunal observed that the transaction of 10,180 Metric Ton of CWO for Rs.59.70 Crores was through actual delivery of goods and it was not a part of trading cycle effected by the respondent – assessee through NSEL for raising finance. It was further found that M/s. N. K. Proteins Limited was having one unit at Shree Rajkot Lodhika Sahkari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd who had sold 10,180 Metric Ton of CWO to the respondent – assessee on actual delivery basis against which sale was duly recorded and recognized in the books of M/s. N. K. Proteins Limited as verified by the Assessing Officer and corresponding sale of 10,180 Metric Ton of CWO made by the respondent assessee from the purchase from M/s. N. K. Proteins Limited was duly supported by the party-wise details furnished by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal has also recorded that the said sale recorded and recognized by the respondent – assessee in its books of account was accepted by the authority below and therefore, held that the corresponding purchase cannot be disallowed when the sale was accepted. The Tribunal also referred to and relied upon the confirmation by Shree Rajkot Lodhika Sahkari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd filed by the assessee confirming the delivery of CWO made by the concerned parties on various dates. 17. The Tribunal, therefore, considering reconciliation provided by the assessee with regard to purchase of 10,180 Metric Ton of CWO for Rs.59.70 Crores on delivery basis came to the conclusion that purchase of 10,180 Metric Tons of CWO for Rs.59.70 Crores cannot be said to be excessive as it is established by the assessee on the basis of the supporting evidence that such purchase was duly recorded and corresponding sale was also proved having been duly recorded and recognized income in the books of account of the assessee and therefore, addition was rightly deleted by the Tribunal. 18. With regard to the question No.3 of deleting addition of Rs.10,04,170/- made on account of cash credit, the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the said amount actually represented realization of sale proceeds which the learned advocate for the appellant would not dispute that the amount in question represented sale proceeds realized by the respondent – assessee. The Tribunal, therefore, has rightly deleted the said addition. 19. So far as question No.4 is concerned arising out of the addition of Rs.3,17,346/- which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of interest expenses, the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that as per the balance-sheet of the respondent – assessee, there was a capital and reserved to the extent of Rs.420 Crores with the assessee company at the relevant time which was sufficient to give interest through advances in question. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly deleted the disallowance of Rs.3,17,346/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of interest expenses. 20. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly deleted the disallowance of Rs.3,17,346/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of interest expenses. 20. Considering the above finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal for deletion of addition made under Section 68 of the Act and deletion of interest expenses are based upon the factual finding, we are, therefore, of the opinion that no questions of law much less any substantial question of law would arise from the impugned order of the Tribunal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.