COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KISHORE APPARELS

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 1260 / 2010HC Delhi30 August 20103 pages
For Petitioner: PL BANSAL
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions, noting that the assessee had consistently dealt with the same parties in previous and subsequent years, and these transactions were accepted as genuine. Payments were made through banking channels, and TDS was deducted where applicable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of unverifiable purchases and unexplained expenses. The Assessing Officer had disallowed these amounts as the assessee did not provide complete details of the parties involved.

What were the issues?

Whether the Tribunal erred in deleting additions for unverifiable purchases and unexplained expenses when the assessee had a consistent business relationship with the parties and payments were made through banking channels.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 68,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

#12 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ ITA 1260/2010

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

..... Appellant Through: Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal,

Advocate

versus

M/S. KISHORE APPARELS ..... Respondent

Through: None

Date of Decision: 30th August, 2010

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

1.

Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.

MANMOHAN, J:

CM 15149/2010

For the reasons stated in the application, delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

Accordingly, application stands disposed of.

ITA 1260/2010 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1961”) challenging the order dated 8th May, 2009 passed by the Income Tax 2010:DHC:4238-DB

Appellate Tribunal (for brevity “Tribunal”) in ITA No. 4018/Del/2007 for the Assessment Year 2003-2004.

2.

Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the Tribunal had erred in deleting the addition of ` 90,00,105/- on account of unverifiable purchases under Section 69 of Act, 1961 and addition of ` 90,32,014/- on account of unexplained expenses under Section 68 of the Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer.

3.

Ms. Bansal pointed out that the assessee did not even file the PAN detail and complete address of the parties. She submitted that the onus lay on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the parties from whom purchases had been made and on whom expenditure had been incurred.

4.

However, upon a perusal of the paper book, we find that both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short “CIT(A)”] and Tribunal have deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. In fact, the assessee had purchased raw material and also got the job work done from the same parties in both earlier and subsequent assessment years. The Assessing Officer in the subsequent Assessment Year of 2004-05 has accepted all these parties and transactions as genuine. Moreover, both the CIT(A) and Tribunal have found that payments had been made to these parties through banking channels and tax had been deducted at source on the payments made towards job work charges.

2010:DHC:4238-DB

5.

Accordingly, in our opinion, the view expressed by the Tribunal is both fair and reasonable. Moreover, no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed in limine.

MANMOHAN, J

CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUST 30, 2010 rn 2010:DHC:4238-DB

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →