THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III vs. SUNTECH VISION LTD.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . . ITA 463/2010 . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III ..... Appellant Through: Ms Rashmi Chopra . versus . SUNTECH VISION LTD. ..... Respondent Through: None . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN . O R D E R 05.04.2010 CM 3941/2010 (Delay application) For the reasons stated in the application and on the basis of the submissions made on behalf of the counsel for the appellant, the delay in re- filing the appeal is condoned. ITA 463/2010 This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 15.12.2008 in relation to the assessment year 2004-05 arising out of ITA No.3511/Del/2007. The point in issue is with regard to investments of about Rs 49 lakhs made by four companies in the assessee company. The said amount of Rs 49 lakhs was received by way of share application money. The Assessing Officer held the same to be unexplained income of the assessee under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, in appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held in favour of the assessee and allowed the assessee?s appeal by holding that the assessee had produced the pan numbers, confirmatory letters, returns of income, etc. in respect of the parties who had made the said investments. Therefore, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had come to the conclusion that the preliminary onus, which was upon the assessee, had been discharged by him. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer stood deleted. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, in the appeal preferred by the revenue, confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and found that the said share application money was substantiated by the assessee by providing all the necessary details as indicated above. The two authorities below, on findings of fact, held that the assessee was not liable to any addition on account of the said share application money. We see no reason to interfere with the said findings. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal is dismissed. BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J . . . V.K. JAIN, J APRIL 05, 2010 dutt . . 1