CIT vs. LIFESTYLE BUILDCON PVT LTD

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . ITA 40/2013 . CIT ..... Appellant . Through: Mr Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Shashank Singh, Advocate. . . . versus . . . LIFESTYLE BUILDCON PVT LTD ..... Respondent . Through: . . . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED . HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR . . . O R D E R . 13.02.2013 . . . This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 has been filed by the Revenue being aggrieved by the order dated 13th February, 2012, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, New Delhi, in ITA No. 3775/Del/2011, pertaining to the assessment year 2006- 07. The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs.5.25 crores under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961, treating the said amount as unconfirmed and unsecured. The CIT (Appeals) deleted the said addition. . Before the CIT (Appeals), the assessee has made an application on 8th September, 2010 under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules 1962 and furnished evidence in the form of a copy of the Income Tax acknowledgement as well as the bank account statement of the lender (Mr S.P. Sachdeva). A remand report on these pieces of evidence was called for from the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer submitted his report through a letter dated 25th April, 2011. In that report, the Assessing Officer noted that the inquiry as conducted in the case revealed that the assessee had received an amount of Rs.5.25 crores from Mr S.P. Sachdeva, through cheque No. 399569 dated 3rd April, 2005 (for . Rs.2 crores) and cheque No. 399570 dated 30th April, 2005 (for Rs.3.25 crores) drawn on Indian Bank, South Extension, New Delhi. The remand report also indicated that the lender (Mr S.P. Sachdeva) was also assessed to Income Tax at DCIT Circle 32(1), New Delhi. On the basis of the said remand report, which was in favour of the assessee, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), as mentioned above, deleted the addition of Rs.5.25 crores. . On an appeal preferred by the Revenue, the Tribunal confirmed the said deletion by the CIT (Appeals). A point was raised before the Tribunal that the assessee had not produced Mr S.P. Sachdeva before the Assessing Officer in order to confirm the said loan of Rs.5.25 crores. However, the Tribunal took the view that the non-production of Mr S.P. Sachdeva would not be detrimental to the case of the assessee inasmuch as the documents on record showed sufficient confirmation of said loan of Rs.5.25 crores. The Tribunal also held as under:- . ?5. We have heard rival contentions, perused the material available on record. It has not been controverted by AO that assessee filed a request that any further correspondence or inquiry can be made by AO directly from Mr.Sachdeva, the creditor. No notice u/s 133(6) or summons u/s 131 was issued by AO asking the creditor to confirm the credit, the way he wanted. It has also not been disputed that the confirmation filed by the assessee contains the particulars of bank transactions together with address, the PAN number of the creditor. In these circumstances, assessee?s onus was discharged as held by Hon?ble Supreme Court in Lovely Exports (supra). Further evidence furnished by the assessee before CIT(A) cannot technically be called a fresh evidence inasmuch as these details are already mentioned in the confirmation. Even if it is assumed to be additional evidence, the material was remanded by CIT(A) to AO and his report contains verification of details. No reason are ascribed by AO for non-admission on further details. In these circumstances, we uphold the order of CIT(A) on admission of additional evidence. . . . 5.1. On merits also, the AO has accepted the PAN details and the bank transactions and has not disputed the credit in his report. In view thereof, we see no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) is upheld.? . . . No substantial question of law arises for the consideration of this court. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. . . . BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J . . . . . R.V.EASWAR, J . FEBRUARY 13, 2013 . n . . . . . . . $ 6 .