CIT vs. INTEGRATED FINLEASE P LTD

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . 10.08.2011 . Present: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue. . +ITA 946/2011 . Three additions were made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order which are as under:- (i) That as per Balance Sheet, there was increase in Bank Balance (Fixed deposits) from ` 1,41,974/- as on 31.3.2000 to ` 4 lacs on 31.3.2001 and there was also increase in balance of cash in hand from ` 3,772/- as on 31.3.2000 to ` 2,07,974/- as on 31.03.2001 and the total increase was at ` 4,62,228/- and out of this amount of ` 4 lacs was considered as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 as the source thereof was unexplained and accordingly an addition of ` 4,00,000/- was made. . (ii) That an addition of ` 15,00,000/- was further made by the Assessing Officer by observing that as per confirmation of M/s Kush Leasing Pvt. Ltd. the assessee had furnish amount of ` 15,00,000/- vide Cheque No. 655817 dated 14.03.2001. Since the assessee had failed to furnish provide any bank details the said amount of ` 15 lacs to Ms/ Kush Leasing Pvt. Ltd. was treated as out of undisclosed s ources. . (iii) That the Assessing Officer further made an addition of `70,43,674/ - by observing that since the assessee had not shown any evidence of payment of ceased liabilities during the year under consideration liability of `70,43,764/- as 31.03.2000 was to be ceased during the financial year 2000-01 relevant to the assessment year under consideration and the ceased liability of ` 70,43,674/ - was assessable as income in the current assessment year under Section 41 of the Act. . The CIT (A) deleted all the three additions by passing detailed orders and the findings of the CIT (A) are confirmed by the ITAT in the impugned order. We have gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that in respect of each additions made by the Assessing Officer, the CIT (A) discussed the same in detail and arrived at a finding of fact holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction as claimed. After going through these orders, we are of the opinion that the matter is in the realm of factual analysis of the aspect and no question of law arises. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. . A.K. SIKRI, J. . M.L.MEHTA, J. August 10, 2011 skb . 9#