Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, (Central)-1 v. Shreepriya Jaipuria
[Citation -2017-LL-0530-77]

Citation 2017-LL-0530-77
Appellant Name Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, (Central)-1
Respondent Name Shreepriya Jaipuria
Court HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 30/05/2017
Assessment Year 2011-12
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags individual capacity • family settlement • payment in cash • question of law • share transaction • contract receipt • unaccounted income
Bot Summary: There is one common question arose in these appeals which have been preferred by the Revenue against the common order dated 17th November, 2016 in ITA Nos.6109/Del./2015, 6110/Del./2015, 6111/Del./2015, ITA 349/2017 Connected Matters Page 2 of 4 6112/Del./2015, 6289/Del/2015 and 5291/Del/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12. 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. However these documents were not examined either by the AO or the Commissioner, Income Tax CIT. 5. Learned counsel for the Revenue has been unable to show that the above factual finding of the ITAT is perverse. As regards Mr. S.K. Jaipuria two more issues are urged by the Revenue. The CIT 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. 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.


IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 4 to 8 ITA 349/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1 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 (CENTRAL)-1 Appellant Through: Mr Sanjay Kumar, Advocate versus SURYA KANT JAIPURIA Respondent Through: Through: Mr P.C. Yadav, Advocate ITA 351/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)- 1 Appellant Through: Mr Sanjay Kumar, Advocate versus SURYA KANT JAIPURIA Respondent Through: Through: Mr P.C. Yadav, Advocate ITA 352/2017 ITA 349/2017 & Connected Matters Page 1 of 4 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 all just 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 Revenue against common order dated 17th November, 2016 in ITA Nos.6109/Del./2015, 6110/Del./2015, 6111/Del./2015, ITA 349/2017 & Connected Matters Page 2 of 4 6112/Del./2015, 6289/Del/2015 and 5291/Del/2015 for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. 3. This common question relates to additions made by Assessing Officer ( AO ) in respect of assessment of each of Respondents/ Assessees who are members of family of Mr S.K. Jaipuria (who is head of family) on account of unaccounted share purchase . 4. attempt of Revenue is to demonstrate that shares of M/s Integrated Caps Pvt. Ltd. (ICPL) were in fact purchased by each of Assessees @ Rs.0.01 per share. Revenue based its case on two sets of documents. second set of documents showed that shares were in fact purchased by M/s Windsor Durobuild Pvt. Ltd ( WDPL ). However these documents were not examined either by AO or Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)]. 5. ITAT has in impugned order categorically held that shareholders register maintained by ICPL as well as returns filed by it with Registrar of Companies showed that shares were in fact transferred to WDPL and not to any of individual Assessees. 6. Learned counsel for Revenue has been unable to show that above factual finding of ITAT is perverse. 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 Revenue. One relates to Annexure-A9 which was seized from his premises which ITA 349/2017 & Connected Matters Page 3 of 4 according to Revenue shows receipt of sum of Rs.7.50 lakhs from contractor, Mr Rakesh Thakur, for installation of kiosks at Sunshine Plaza, Indirapuram. Adding up figures appearing in said document, AO sought to add Rs.34.75 lacs to income of Mr Jaipuria. 8. CIT(A) reversed findings of AO on this aspect. In statement recorded under Section 132(4) of Act Assessee pointed out that this was not amount paid to him in his individual capacity but company of which he was Director and which is separately assessed. CIT (A) held that was no document had been placed on record by AO to show that said sum was in fact received by Assessee. This factual finding has been affirmed by ITAT. Since there are concurrent findings of facts against Revenue and in favour of Assessee, Court is not inclined to frame any substantial question of law in this regard. 9. third issue is about alleged unexplained payment in cash as result of family settlement amongst Mr. Chander Kant Jaipuria, Mr. Surya Kant Jaipuria and R.K. Jaipuria. Here again, ITAT has deleted additions on account of cheques not having been encashed and shares not being transferred. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises from this issue as well. appeals are accordingly dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J CHANDER SHEKHAR, J MAY 30, 2017/rd ITA 349/2017 & Connected Matters Page 4 of 4 Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, (Central)-1 v. Shreepriya Jaipuria
Report Error