COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. VINTAGE CREDIT & LEASING PVT LTD

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . ITA 569/2010 . . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal . versus . . VINTAGE CREDIT and LEASING PVT LTD ..... Respondent Through . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN . O R D E R 10.05.2010 . . CM 5235/2010 Allowed, subject to just exceptions. ITA 569/2010 . This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.5.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.2705/Del/2008 relating to the assessment year 2002-2003. An assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer in the proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer had, inter alia, made an addition of Rs 11 lakhs on account of alleged share application money received by the assessee company. The amount of Rs 11 lakhs was received from three parties, namely, M/s Chintpurni Credit and Leasing P. Ltd.(Rs.4 lakhs), M/s.Sober Associates P.Ltd.(Rs.4 lakhs) and M/s Rahul Fin-lease P Ltd.(Rs.3 lakhs). The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that the identities of the three share applicants were borne out by the fact that all the three applicants were private limited companies and were regular income-tax assesses. They had submitted affidavits of their Directors, certificates of confirmation, their Bank Statements, copies of their balance sheets as well as copies of Income-tax returns for the assessment year 2000-2001. Other details such as Pan Number etc. were also clearly indicated. In view of the said information and particulars which were available on record, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal applied the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd: 216 CTR 195 and thereafter deleted the said addition. In doing so, it upheld the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). No infirmity in the said decision has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. Consequently, we find that no substantial question of law arises for the consideration of this court. The appeal is dismissed. BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J . . . V.K. JAIN, J May 10, 2010 ?sn? $ 8