PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. A.I.DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/387/2016HC DelhiDLHC01166817201629 July 2016Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found that the CIT(A) had examined documents and the AO's remand report, concluding the assessee sufficiently explained the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of creditors and investments. The ITAT concurred with these findings.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made by the AO. The additions pertained to unexplained share application money, unsecured loans, unexplained investment, and disallowance on plot purchase.

What were the issues?

Whether the ITAT was right in upholding the deletion of additions made by the AO under Sections 68 and 69 of the IT Act due to unexplained share application money, unsecured loans, and investments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 387/2016

Page 1 of 3

$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +

ITA 387/2016

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. P. Roychaudhuri, Sr. Standing Counsel.

versus

A.I.DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD.

..... Respondent

Through:

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

O R D E R %

29.07.2016

CM No. 25172/2016 (Exemption) 1. Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

ITA No. 387/2016 2. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 27th January, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („Tribunal‟), in ITA No. 2102/Del/2011 for the Assessment Year („AY‟) 2007-08. The Revenue seeks to urge the following four questions before the Court:

“(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of CIT(A) who deleted the addition of Rs. 92,95,000/- under section 68 of the IT Act made by the AO on account of unexplained share application money.

(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of CIT(A) who decided the addition

ITA 387/2016

Page 2 of 3

of Rs. 52,48,820/- under section 68 of the Act made by the AO on account of unsecured loans.

(iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of CIT(A) who deleted the addition of Rs. 74,84,106/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 made by the AO.

(iv) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) who deleted the disallowance of Rs. 12,23,707/- made by the AO on account of purchase of plot.”

3.

It is noticed at the outset that during the proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [„CIT(A)‟], the Assessee produced documents which were examined in detail. It is only after discussing the entire material in the light of the remand report of the Assessing Officer („AO‟) the CIT(A) has come to a definite conclusion that the Assessee has been able to sufficiently explain, to the satisfaction of the CIT(A), of the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors. This is in respect of both the additions sought to be made by the AO under Section 68 of the Act, on account of alleged unexplained share application money as well as unsecured loans. The CIT(A) has also deleted the addition of Rs. 74,84,106/- on the question of unexplained investment and returned a categorical finding that these investments have been sufficiently explained by the Assessee. The reasons for deletion of the addition in relation to the purchase of the plot have also been discussed in sufficient detail by the CIT (A).

4.

The above factual findings have been concurred with by the ITAT in a very detailed order again discussing the material available on record. The

ITA 387/2016

Page 3 of 3

Court has not been persuaded by the learned counsel for the Revenue to view the above concurrent findings to be suffering from any perversity requiring any substantial question of law to be framed, as urged by the Revenue.

5.

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

S. MURALIDHAR, J

NAJMI WAZIRI, J JULY 29, 2016 kk

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →