Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-6 v. Noida Medicare Centre Ltd
[Citation -2017-LL-0712]

Citation 2017-LL-0712
Appellant Name Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-6
Respondent Name Noida Medicare Centre Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 12/07/2017
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags unexplained credit • onus to prove • bogus purchase • final fact-finding authority
Bot Summary: The Revenue in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenges an order dated 27th October 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 630/Del/2014 for the Assessment Year 1994-96. Having perused the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax CIT which has been concurred with by the ITAT in the impugned order, this Court is not satisfied that any substantial question of law arises in respect of the above issues. The view taken by the CIT concurred with by the ITAT appears to be a plausible view on facts. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal.


IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 3 ITA 348/2017 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior standing counsel. versus NOIDA MEDICARE CENTRE LTD ..... Respondent CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH ORDER 12.07.2017 1. Revenue in this appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ) challenges order dated 27th October 2016 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in ITA No. 630/Del/2014 for Assessment Year 1994-96. 2. Revenue urges following questions for consideration: (i) Whether in facts and circumstances of case, ITAT is legally justified in deleting disallowance of Rs. 36,00,000 on account of unproved purchases by Assessee solely on ground that Assessee has produced purchases invoice and payment was made through banking channel and by ignoring uncontroverted finding of facts recorded by AO that alleged purchases were not proved by Assessee and there was credible findings to reject claim of Assessee? (ii) Whether in facts and circumstances of case, ITAT is legally justified in deleting addition of Rs. 42,25,000 on account of unexplained credit by ignoring categorical finds of facts as recorded by AO that Assessee had not proved that credit actually represented export proceeds? 3. Having perused order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT (A) ] which has been concurred with by ITAT in impugned order, this Court is not satisfied that any substantial question of law arises in respect of above issues. view taken by CIT (A) concurred with by ITAT appears to be plausible view on facts. 4. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. appeal is dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J JULY 12, 2017 Rm Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-6 v. Noida Medicare Centre Ltd
Report Error