Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-3 v. A.R. Leasing Pvt. Ltd - 2017-LL-0703-10

Citation	2017-LL-0703-10
Appellant Name	Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-3
Respondent Name	A.R. Leasing Pvt. Ltd.
Court	HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	03/07/2017
Assessment Year	2009-10
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	memorandum of association • unexplained credit • condonation of delay • source of expenditure • audited accounts • audited profit and loss account • genuineness of transaction • market rate • share premium account • share capital
Bot Summary:	This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 filed by the Revenue against an order dated 5th September, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 3438/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. The issue urged by the Revenue in this appeal concerns the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act. The deletion was ordered by the Commissioner of Income Tax ) by the order ITA 361/2017 Page 1 of 3 dated 7th March 2013, which order was confirmed by the ITAT by the impugned order dismissing the Revenue s appeal on this aspect. We have perused the orders passed by the AO, the CIT(A) and the ITAT. The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal by relying on an earlier order of the ITAT in the Assessee s own case for AY 2006-07 in ITA No. 524/Del/2014. Mr. Chaudhary nevertheless insisted that since there was no consideration of the issue on merits, the present case should be remanded to the ITAT for a fresh consideration. The CIT has in para 9.1 of his order noted that the Assessee had placed before the AO the following documents of the investing companies: Memorandum of Association, Articles of Association, certificates of incorporation, bank accounts indicating the source of payment, copy of confirmations, Income Tax particulars, audited balance sheets, Profit and Loss Account etc. No substantial question of law arises from the impugned order of the ITAT. The appeal is dismissed.

IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA 361/2017 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus A.R. LEASING PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH ORDER % 03.07.2017 CM No. 17091/2017 (delay in re-filing) 1. For reasons stated therein, this application is allowed. delay in re-filing appeal is condoned. CM No. 17090/2017 (delay in filing) 2. For reasons stated therein, this application is allowed. delay in filing appeal is condoned. ITA No. 361/2017 3. This is appeal under section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ) filed by Revenue against order dated 5th September, 2016 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in ITA No. 3438/Del/2013 for Assessment Year ( AY ) 2009-10. 4. issue urged by Revenue in this appeal concerns deletion of addition made by Assessing Officer ( AO ) on account of alleged unexplained credit under section 68 of Act. deletion was ordered by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ( CIT(A) ) by order ITA 361/2017 Page 1 of 3 dated 7th March 2013, which order was confirmed by ITAT by impugned order dismissing Revenue s appeal on this aspect. 5. We have heard submission of Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Revenue. We have perused orders passed by AO, CIT(A) and ITAT. ITAT dismissed Revenue's appeal by relying on earlier order of ITAT in Assessee s own case for AY 2006-07 in ITA No. 524/Del/2014 (Commissioner of Income Tax-III v. A.R. Leasing Pvt. Ltd.). That order of ITAT was confirmed by this Court by dismissing Revenue s further appeal. 6. Mr. Chaudhary nevertheless insisted that since there was no consideration of issue on merits, present case should be remanded to ITAT for fresh consideration. 7. CIT (A) has in para 9.1 of his order noted that Assessee had placed before AO following documents of investing companies: Memorandum of Association, Articles of Association, certificates of incorporation, bank accounts indicating source of payment, copy of confirmations, Income Tax particulars, audited balance sheets, Profit and Loss Account etc. However, AO disregarded above documents and came to conclusion that transaction of receiving money as share capital was not genuine one primarily because premium charged by Assessee was much higher than prevalent market trend. As rightly observed by CIT (A) unless AO had brought on record some material to show that confirmation and other evidence placed by Assessee was not genuine, he could not have simply discarded documents produced by Assessee. ITA 361/2017 Page 2 of 3 8. Court too finds that there is no discussion of above documents by AO. In circumstances, conclusion reached by CIT(A) that addition under Section 68 of Act was not justified appears to be unexceptionable. 9. No substantial question of law arises from impugned order of ITAT. appeal is dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J JULY 03, 2017 dk ITA 361/2017 Page 3 of 3 Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-3 v. A.R. Leasing Pvt. Ltd

Metadata

Judgment