NEW ERA INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-V & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 213 / 2013HC Delhi10 April 20131 pages
For Petitioner: SATYEN SETHI & ARTA TRANA PANDA
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the parties from whom share application money was received. The conflicting affidavits further indicated a lack of clarity.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer added ₹15 lakhs as share application money received by the assessee. The assessee had shown this amount from two entities, Ganga Infin Pvt. Ltd. and Kuber Company Sales Pvt. Ltd. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, but the Tribunal restored it.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee discharged its burden to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the parties providing share application money.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . ITA 213/2013 . NEW ERA INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD. ..... Appellant . Through Mr Satyen Sethi and Mr Arta Trana Panda, Advs. . . . versus . . . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-V and ANR. . ..... Respondents . Through . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR . . . O R D E R . 10.04.2013 . . . This appeal has been filed by the assessee being aggrieved by the order dated 12.10.2012 in ITA No.2081/Del/2010 pertaining to the assessment year 2006-07. . 2. The assessing officer had made an addition of `15 lakhs under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at the hands of the assessee. The assessee had shown this amount of `15 lakhs as share application money received from two entities ? Ganga Infin Pvt. Ltd. (`7 lakhs) and Kuber Company Sales Pvt. Ltd. (`8 lakhs). The assessee?s appeal was allowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the said addition of `15 lakhs was deleted. The revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which has allowed the revenue?s appeal and has restored the addition made by the assessing officer. . The main point that has been accepted by the Tribunal is that assessee had not been able to discharge the burden of proving the identity, genuineness as also credit worthiness of the said parties. The Tribunal also noted that two sets of affidavits had been filed by so- called Directors of the said entities. In the first set the said amounts were shown as unsecured loans whereas in the second set the same were shown as share application money. This in itself shows that the position was far from being clear and the burden which was cast upon the assessee had not been discharged by it. The Tribunal has found, on facts, that the said addition was sustainable. We see no reason to interfere as no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. . The appeal is dismissed. . . . BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J . . . . . R.V.EASWAR, J . APRIL 10, 2013 . vld . . . $ 18 and 19 .

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →