IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA 628/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Puneet Rai & Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocates. versus HI-TECH RESIDENCY PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani & Ms. Soumya Singh, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH ORDER % 07.07.2017 1.This is appeal by Revenue against order dated 18th December, 2015 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in ITA No.4707/Del/2012 for Assessment Year ( AY ) 2009-10. 2. While admitting appeal on 18th December, 2016, following questions were framed: (1) Whether on facts and circumstances of case, ITAT erred in deleting addition of Rs 1,30,00,000 under Section 68 where assessee was not able to produce any of Director, Shareholders or Principal Officer of companies to which shares were allotted? ITA 628/2016 Page 1 of 3 (2) Whether on facts and circumstances of case, ITAT was justified in upholding order of CIT(A) by reducing addition under Section 68 to Rs 5,01,000 on account of receipt of Unsecured loans of Rs. 1,00,01,000? (3) Whether on facts and circumstances of case and in law ITAT was justified in deleting addition of Rs 15,00,000 under Section 68 received as earnest money without any evidence of agreement? 3. Court has been taken through order of Assessing Officer ( AO ) as well as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT(A) ] and ITAT. 4. Court finds that exercise for determining identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors of share capital of Assessee as well as lenders was undertaken in elaborate manner by CIT(A). Comments from AO were sought. Detailed reasons have been given by CIT(A) to come to conclusion that Assessee had discharged its onus of establishing identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of both investors as well as lenders. This has been concurred with by ITAT in impugned order which is again extremely detailed one. 5. concurrent factual findings of both CIT(A) and ITAT have not been shown to be perverse by Appellant. This is virtually fourth stage of litigation. ITA 628/2016 Page 2 of 3 6. Question (1) is accordingly answered in negative, i.e., in favour of Assessee and against Revenue. Question (2) is answered in affirmative, i.e., in favour of Assessee and against Revenue. Question (3) is answered in affirmative, i.e., in favour of Assessee and against Revenue. 7. appeal is accordingly dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J JULY 07, 2017 b nesh ITA 628/2016 Page 3 of 3 Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-4 v. Hi-Tech Residency Pvt. Ltd