Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-21 v. Luthra & Luthra Law Office
[Citation -2015-LL-1117-13]

Citation 2015-LL-1117-13
Appellant Name Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-21
Respondent Name Luthra & Luthra Law Office
Court HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 17/11/2015
Assessment Year 2009-10
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags substantial question of law
Bot Summary: By this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Revenue seeks to challenge an order dated 23rd March 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 3153/Del/2013 pertaining to Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessee had claimed depreciation on computers purchased but the Assessing Officer doubted the genuineness of the party from whom the computers were purchased and proceeded to make an addition of Rs.30,82,560. The Commissioner of Income Tax CIT ITA No. 869 of 2015 Page 1 of 3 reversed the order of the AO after being satisfied with the identity and genuineness of the party from whom the computers had been purchased. The factors that weighed with the CIT were that an invoice including the value added tax had been raised by the seller; the amount was paid by the Assessee by cheque which had been cleared in the bank account of the Assessee; the vendor has been issued a VAT registration certificate at the address mentioned in the invoice; the vendor had been issued Permanent Account Number by the income tax authority; copies of the PAN card and the DVAT registration certificates were enclosed. The CIT concluded that the above facts prove beyond reasonable doubt that the payment was made for the computers and these computers were acquired. Nothing was shown before the ITAT by the Revenue to disprove the above facts except the solitary factor of the vendor company not being found at the given address, when an enquiry was made by the AO. 3. Considering that the CIT and the ITAT were satisfied about the identity and genuineness of the company from whom the computers were purchased by the Assessee, the Court is not persuaded to hold that either of those orders suffer from any perversity giving rise to any substantial question of law.


$ * IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 25. + ITA 869/2015 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21 ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing counsel with Ms. Lakshmi Gurung, Ms. Radhika Gupta, Mr. Abhishek Sharma and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocates. versus LUTHRA & LUTHRA LAW OFFICE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Parag Mohanty, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER % 17.11.2015 1. By this appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ), Revenue seeks to challenge order dated 23rd March 2015 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in ITA No. 3153/Del/2013 pertaining to Assessment Year ( AY ) 2009-10. 2. Assessee had claimed depreciation on computers purchased but Assessing Officer ( AO ) doubted genuineness of party from whom computers were purchased and proceeded to make addition of Rs.30,82,560. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT (A) ] ITA No. 869 of 2015 Page 1 of 3 reversed order of AO after being satisfied with identity and genuineness of party from whom computers had been purchased. factors that weighed with CIT (A) were that invoice including value added tax (VAT) had been raised by seller; amount was paid by Assessee by cheque which had been cleared in bank account of Assessee; vendor has been issued VAT registration certificate at address mentioned in invoice; vendor had been issued Permanent Account Number ( PAN ) by income tax authority; copies of PAN card and DVAT registration certificates were enclosed. CIT (A), therefore, concluded that above facts prove beyond reasonable doubt that payment was made for computers and these computers were acquired. Nothing was shown before ITAT by Revenue to disprove above facts except solitary factor of vendor company not being found at given address, when enquiry was made by AO. 3. Considering that CIT (A) and ITAT were satisfied about identity and genuineness of company from whom computers were purchased by Assessee, Court is not persuaded to hold that either of those orders suffer from any perversity giving rise to any substantial question of law. ITA No. 869 of 2015 Page 2 of 3 4. appeal is accordingly dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J NOVEMBER 17, 2015 dn ITA No. 869 of 2015 Page 3 of 3 Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-21 v. Luthra & Luthra Law Office
Report Error