itxa-38-2013 IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY rt ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ou INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 38 OF 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax 3 .. Appellant. V/s. C M/s. Videocon International Ltd. .. Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta, Sr. Advocate i/b. Mr. S. V . Walve, for Appellant. h Mr. F. V Irani with Ms. Neeta Rajda i/b. DSR Associates, for . Respondent. ig CORAM: M.S.SANKLECHA, & G.S.KULKARNI, JJ. H DATE : 13th JANUARY, 2015. P.C: This appeal by Revenue under Section 260 of y Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges order dated 23 rd ba December, 2011 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) for Assessment Year 1994 95. om 2 following question of law has been raised for our consideration: Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in deleting addition of Rs.2 B Crores made by Assessing Officer u/s. 69C of Income Tax Act? 3 During course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer placed reliance upon information received that S.R.JOSHI 1 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2016 09:57:50 ::: itxa-38-2013 Respondent Assessee had paid sum of Rs.2 Crores to Captain Satish Sharma, then Minister of Petroleum and Natural Gas. This information rt was on basis of statement made by Additional Private Secretary ou to Captain Satish Sharma before enquiry officer in JMM MPs Bribery's case. On basis of above statement, amount of Rs.2 Crores was added to Respondent Assessee's income as un explained C expenditure under Section 69C of Act by order dated 30 th March, 2006 of Assessing Officer. This notwithstanding Respondent Assessee denying having made any payment to Captain Satish Sharma. h 4 On Appeal by Respondent Revenue, Commissioner of ig Income Tax (Appeals) by order dated 31 st March, 2008 allowed appeal. This after recording fact that copies of statement being H relied upon by Revenue were not furnished in full to Respondent Assessee. basis of allowing appeal was on consideration of all facts and decision of Delhi High Court in JMM MPs Bribery, y holding that statement of additional Private Secretary to Captain ba Satish Sharma as well as statement of Shri Shailendra Mahato were not reliable. om 5 Being aggrieved, Revenue preferred appeal to Tribunal. By impugned order dated 23 rd December, 2011, Tribunal held that entire basis of addition was statement of B Additional Private Secretary to Captain Satish Sharma and that of Shailendra Mahato were found to be un reliable by Delhi High Court in JMM MPs Bribery case. impugned order also notes that in identical issue arising in case of Essar Oil Ltd. (ITA no.5141/MUM/2003), it was found that on cross examination, S.R.JOSHI 2 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2016 09:57:50 ::: itxa-38-2013 Additional Private Secretary of Captain Satish Sharma retracted his earlier statement. Thus, following its decision in Essar Oil Ltd. (supra), order rt of CIT(A) dated 31st March, 2008 in Respondent Assessee's case, was ou upheld. 6 grievance of Appellant Revenue with impugned order C is that once charge sheet had been filed, alleging payment of Rs.2 Crores by Respondent Assesseee to Captain Satish Sharma, would by itself establish expenditure. non explanation of source of above h amounts results in application of Section 69C of Act. Therefore, addition made by Assessing Officer ought to have been sustained. ig 7 We find that so far as alleged payment of Rs.2 Crores is H concerned, same on facts has been negatived by CIT(A) and Tribunal. finding is not shown to be perverse as we find that findings of CIT(A) and Tribunal are based on evidence and y decision of Delhi High Court in JMM MPs Bribery (supra). filing ba of charge sheet by itself does not establish payment of Rs.2 Crores by Respondent Assessee to Captain Satish Sharma and particularly when proceedings itself resulted in acquittal of Captain Satish Sharma by om Trial Court. State then preferred Revision Application against order of acquittal and Delhi High Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 33 of 2001 reported in P . Narasimha Rao v/s. State 2002 . V B Criminal Law Journal 2401 dismissed State's application. Thus, there being concurrent findings of fact which are not shown to be perverse, no substantial question of law arises. 8 It may also be pointed out that we are informed that appeal filed by Revenue against order of Essar Oils (supra) came S.R.JOSHI 3 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2016 09:57:50 ::: itxa-38-2013 to be dismissed on account of non removal of office objections. Revenue has not taken any steps as yet to restore that appeal. rt 9 Be that as it may, in present case, there being concurrent ou finding of fact holding that no amount of Rs.2 Crores or any part thereof was paid by Respondent Assessee to Captain Satish Sharma. No C occasion to invoke Section 69C of Act can arise. 10 Accordingly, Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. h (G.S.KULKARNI,J.) ig (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) H y ba om B S.R.JOSHI 4 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2016 09:57:50 ::: Commissioner of Income-tax -3 v. VideoconInternationalLtd