PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 11 vs. SHRI INDER PAL SINGH WADHAWAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA/222/2017HC DelhiDLHC01088875201705 May 2017Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeals. It noted that the ITAT's deletion of additions for unsecured loans and bogus purchases was based on a precedent that was upheld by the High Court. The court also found no substantial question of law regarding the capital gains issue.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that deleted additions made on account of unexplained unsecured loans and bogus purchases. The ITAT had relied on a previous decision in a similar case. Another issue involved the addition of profit from property sale treated as long-term capital gain.

What were the issues?

Whether the ITAT correctly deleted additions for unexplained loans and bogus purchases. Whether the treatment of property sale profit as long-term capital gain with indexation benefit was legally sound.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 54

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~8&9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

ITA 222/2017

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 11 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Senior Standing Counsel

versus

SHRI INDER PAL SINGH WADHAWAN ..... Respondent

Through: None

WITH

ITA 223/2017

PR. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX- 11 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Senior Standing Counsel

versus

SHRI INDER PAL SINGH WADHAWAN ..... Respondent

Through: None

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

O R D E R %

05.05.2017 1. These appeals by the Revenue under Section 268 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) are directed against a common order dated 8th July, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA Nos. 952/Del/2013 and 1489/Del/2013 for the Assessment Years 2007-08 and

ITA Nos. 222/2017 & 223/2017

Page 1 of 3

2008-2009.

2.

One of the issues in both these appeals concerns the addition made by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) on account of unexplained and unsecured loans under Section 68 of the Act. In deleting the additions, the ITAT has noticed that an identical issue arose in the case of M/s Vardaan Fashion in ITA No. 950/Del/2013. Relying on the order in that case, the ITAT has deleted the addition. Even as regards the bogus purchase, the addition made by the AO has been deleted by the ITAT by relying on the decision in M/s Vardaan Fashion.

3.

The appeal filed by the Revenue, being ITA No.106/2017 in this Court against the said order in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-17 v. Vardan Fashions was dismissed by the Court vide order dated 22nd February, 2017. Therefore, the Court declines to frame a question on both the above issues.

4.

The further issue that arises in ITA No. 223/2017 is whether the addition of Rs.80,40,000/- made by the AO on account of profit from the sale of the property at 19, West Avenue, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi by treating it as income from long term capital gain and also allowing the benefit of indexation under Section 54 of the Act was correct in law.

5.

On this issue, the ITAT has while deciding this issue in favour of Assessee relied on the judgment of this Court in Arun Shungloo Trust v. CIT (2012) 249 CTR (Del) 294. The Court finds no reason to re-consider

ITA Nos. 222/2017 & 223/2017

Page 2 of 3

the view taken by it in the above decision. No substantial question of law arises as regards this issue as well. Consequently, these appeals are dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J MAY 05, 2017 tp

ITA Nos. 222/2017 & 223/2017

Page 3 of 3

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →