PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S RANCURE INVESTMENT PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/564/2017HC DelhiDLHC01288763201701 September 2017Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the ITAT had not erred in concurring with the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 5.20 crores. The Court found that a detailed analysis of the materials placed on record had been undertaken by both the CIT(A) and the ITAT. It was concurrently held that the Assessee had successfully discharged its burden of proving the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the transactions. The Court was not persuaded that the order of the ITAT suffered from perversity warranting interference, and therefore, no substantial question of law arose. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7, filed an appeal against the order dated December 30, 2016, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 6099/Del/2013. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2009-10. The dispute concerns an addition of Rs. 5.20 crores made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was subsequently deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and upheld by the ITAT. The High Court of Delhi reviewed the orders of the AO, CIT(A), and ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT erred in concurring with the CIT(A) in holding that the addition of Rs. 5.20 crores made by the AO under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be deleted. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that it had discharged its burden of proving the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the transactions. This argument is implicitly accepted by the CIT(A) and ITAT. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that the ITAT erred in deleting the addition made by the AO under Section 68 of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 564/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel. versus RANCURE INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Avinash Chaurasia, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R % 01.09.2017 1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 30th December, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No.6099/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2009-10. 2. The question urged by the Revenue is that whether the ITAT has erred, in concurring with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT(A)’] in holding that the addition of Rs.5,20 crores made by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) should be deleted. 3. Having heard the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue and having perused the orders of the AO, the CIT (A) and the ITAT, this Court finds that a detailed analysis has been undertaken both by the CIT (A) and

the ITAT of the materials placed on record. It has been concurrently held that the Assessee has discharged its burden of proving the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the transactions. 4. The Court is, therefore, not persuaded that the order of the ITAT suffers from perversity so as to warrant interference. No substantial question of law arises. 5. The appeal is dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. SEPTEMBER 01, 2017 dk

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →