PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)- 1 vs. SURYA KANT JAIPURIA

0 $- • ••, • * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 4 to 8 + ITA 349/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T.\X (CENTRAL)-l Appellant Through; Mr Sanjay Kumar, Advocate versus SHREEPRIYA JAIPURIA Respondent Through: Through: Mr P.C. Yadav, Advocate + ITA 350/2017 PRINCIPAL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAIO-1 Appellant Through: Mr Sanjay Kumar, Advocate versus SURYA KANT JAIPURIA Respondent Through: Through: Mr P.C. Yadav, Advocate + ITA 351/201 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)- 1 ..... Appellant Through: Mr Sanjay Kuniar, Advocate versus SURYA KANT JAIPURIA .....Respondent Through: Through: Mr P.C. Yadav, Advocate + ITA 352/2017 ITA 349/2017 £ Connected Matters Page I of4 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified

-0 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)- 1 Appellant Through: Mr Sanjay Kumar, Advocate versus MANJU JAIPURIA Respondent Through: Through: Mr P.C. Yadav, Advocate + ITA 353/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)- 1 Appellant Through: Mr Sanjay Kumar, Advocate versus VAIBHAV JAIPURIA Respondent Through: Mr P.C. Yadav, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR ORDER % 30.05.2017 CM 16884/2017 (exemption^ in ITA 349/2017 CM 16886/2017 (exemption) in ITA 350/2017 CM 16888/2017 (exemption) in ITA 352/2017 CM 16891/2017 (exemption) in ITA 353/2017 1.Allowed, subject to alljust exceptions. ITA 349/2017, ITA 350/2017, ITA 351/2017. ITA 352/2017. ITA 353/2017 2. There is one common question arose in these appeals which have been preferred by the Revenue against the common order dated 17"' November, 2016 in ITA Nos.6109/Del./2015, 6110/Del./2015, 6111/Del./2015, ITA 349/2017&Connected Matters Page 2of4

r 6112/Del./2015, 6289/Del/2015 and 5291/Del/2015 for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. 3. This common question relates to the additions made by the Assessing Officer ('AO') in respect of assessment of each of the Respondents/ Assessees who are members of the family of Mr S.K. Jaipuria (who is the head of thefamily) on account of 'unaccounted share purchase'. 4. The attempt of the Revenue is to demonstrate that the shares of M/s Integrated Caps Pvt. Ltd. (ICPL) were in fact purchased by each of the Assessees @ Rs.0.01 per share. The Revenue based its case on two sets of documents. The second set of documents showed that the shares were in fact purchased by M/s Windsor Durobuild Pvt. Ltd ('WDPL'). However these documents were not examined either by the AO or the Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)]. 5. The ITAT has in the impugned order categorically held that the shareholders register maintained by ICPL as well as the returns filed by it with the Registrar of Companies showed that the shares were in fact transferred to WDPL and not to any of the individual Assessees. 6. Learned counsel for the Revenue has been unable to show that the above factual finding of the ITAT is pen^erse. The Court, therefore, declines to frame any substantial question of law on this issue. 7. As regards Mr. S.K. Jaipuria two more issues are urged by the Revenue. One relates to Annexure-A9 which was seized from his premises which ITA 349/2017 & Connected Matters

V / according to the Revenue shows the receipt ofasum ofRs.7.50 lakhs from a contractor, Mr Rakesh Thakur, for installation of kiosks at Sunshine Plaza, Indirapuram. Adding up the figures appearing in the said document, the AO sought to add Rs.34.75 lacs to the income ofMr Jaipuria. 8. The CIT(A) reversed the findings of the AO on this aspect. In the statement recorded under Section 132(4) ofthe Act the Assessee pointed out that this was not an amount paid to him in his individual capacity but the company of which he was Director and which is aseparately assessed. The CIT (A) held that was no document had been placed on record by the AO to show that the said sum was in fact received by the Assessee. This factual finding has been affirmed by the ITAT. Since there are concurrent findings offacts against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee, the Court is not inclined to frame any substantial question oflaw inthis regard. 9. The third issue is about the alleged unexplained payment in cash as a result of the family settlement amongst Mr. Chander Kant Jaipuria, Mr. Surya Kant Jaipuria and R.K. Jaipuria. Here again, the iTAT has deleted the additions on account ofthe cheques not having been encashed and the shares not being transferred. Therefore, no substantial question oflaw arises from this issue as well. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J )Q chand^;r shekhar, j MAY 30, 2017/rrf ITA349/2017&Connected Matters 'tof4