IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHInITA 658/2019 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)- 2 Appellant Through: Mr. Deepak Anand, Junior Standing Counsel for Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Senior Standing Counsel, both for Revenue versus M/S MEROFORM INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sameer Rohatgi, Mr. Akshit Pradhan and Ms. P. Shree Banerjee, Advocates ITA 659/2019 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)- 2 Appellant Through: Mr. Deepak Anand, Junior Standing Counsel for Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Senior Standing Counsel, both for Revenue versus M/S MEROFORM INDIA PVT. LTD Respondent Through: Mr. Sameer Rohatgi, Mr. Akshit Pradhan and Ms. P. Shree Banerjee, Advocates ITA 660/2019 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)- 2 Appellant Through: Mr. Deepak Anand, Junior Standing Counsel for Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Senior Standing Counsel, both for Revenue ITA 658/2019 etc. Page 1 of 6 versus MEROFORM INDIA PVT.LTD. Respondent Through: Mr. Sameer Rohatgi, Mr. Akshit Pradhan and Ms. P. Shree Banerjee, Advocates ITA 661/2019 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)- 2 Appellant Through: Mr. Deepak Anand, Junior Standing Counsel for Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Senior Standing Counsel, both for Revenue versus MEROFORM INDIA PVT. LTD.Respondent Through: Mr. Sameer Rohatgi, Mr. Akshit Pradhan and Ms. P. Shree Banerjee, Advocates ITA 663/2019 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)- 2 Appellant Through: Mr. Deepak Anand, Junior Standing Counsel for Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Senior Standing Counsel, both for Revenue versus M/S MEROFORM INDIA PVT. LTD. Respondent Through: Mr. Sameer Rohatgi, Mr. Akshit Pradhan and Ms. P. Shree Banerjee, Advocates + ITA 664/2019 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)- 2 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Deepak Anand, Junior Standing ITA 658/2019 etc. Page 2 of 6 Counsel for Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Senior Standing Counsel, both for Revenue versus M/S MEROFORM INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sameer Rohatgi, Mr. Akshit Pradhan and Ms. P. Shree Banerjee, Advocates CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH ORDER % 22.07.2019 CM APPLs. 32137/2019, 32138/2019, 32139/2019, 32140/2019, 32142/2019 and 32143/2019 (delay in re-filing appeals) 1. For reasons explained in applications, delay in re-filing appeals is condoned. applications are allowed. ITA 658/2019, 659/2019, 660/2019, 661/2019, 663/2019, 664/2019 2. These appeals by Revenue are against common impugned order dated 31st July, 2018 passed in ITR Nos. 4630, 4631, 4632, 4633, 4634, 4635/Del/2014 for Assessment Years (AYs) 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. 3. common question of law that has been urged by Revenue in all these appeals concerns correctness of impugned order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upholding order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT (A) ] that there was no incriminating material ITA 658/2019 etc. Page 3 of 6 recovered against Assessee during course of search warranting re-opening of assessments and making additions under Section 153A of Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ). 4. ITAT has noticed that search and seizure was conducted in business premises of Assessee on 19th October, 2010 and notices under Section 153A of Act were issued on 27th September, 2012. In each of above Assessment Years for which notices were issued, as far as AYs 2006- 07 to 2008-09 were concerned, returns had been filed on due date and even assessment had been completed under Section 143 (3) of Act much before date of search. learned CIT(A) agreed with Assessee that judgment of this Court in CIT v. Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 would apply, particularly since Revenue was not able to dispute that no incriminating material was found qua additions made for AYs in question. 5. In impugned order, ITAT followed judgment of this Court in CIT v. Kabul Chawla (Supra) and for AYs 2006-2007 to 2008-2009, it held that additions were beyond scope of assessment under Section 153A of Act. 6. ITAT then proceeded to discuss additions for remaining AYs i.e. 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. As regards two of AYs i.e. 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, it found that expenses shown by Assessee in its books of accounts were incurred during normal course of business. ITA 658/2019 etc. Page 4 of 6 Consequently, these additions were rightly held to have been deleted by CIT (A). 7. Learned Counsel for Revenue has drawn attention of Court to statement recorded during course of survey made under Section 133A of Act in case of one M/s Nitin Enterprises by one of its partners. statement adverted to said Nitin Enterprises being engaged in practice of issuing bogus bills to various parties. statement was to effect that Assessee had issued cheques against bogus bills for which cash had been later paid to Assessee. 8. ITAT has in impugned order taken note of fact that before AO, Assessee produced various documents which showed that there was litigation between Assessee and M/s Nitin Enterprises which ended in settlement. These documents were before AO who took no adverse view thereof. ITAT noted that statement had been recorded behind Assessee s back and person making statement was not subjected to cross-examination. In circumstances, ITAT concurred with detailed findings rendered by CIT(A) on this issue. 9. similar view was taken by ITAT in respect of purchases made from one M/s Kiran Furnitures. ITAT has in impugned order examined documents and evidence afresh and has given detailed reasons in support of its concurrence with view expressed by CIT (A). additions made by AO for AY 2011-2012, which have been deleted by CIT (A), have also been discussed in detail by ITAT in impugned order and ITA 658/2019 etc. Page 5 of 6 findings concurring with views expressed by CIT(A) have been rendered. 10. In view of concurrent findings of both CIT(A) and ITAT on facts, Court finds that in present cases, no substantial question of law arises from impugned common order of ITAT. 11. These appeals are accordingly dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J. TALWANT SINGH, J. JULY 22, 2019 PB ITA 658/2019 etc. Page 6 of 6 Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, (Central)-2 v. Meroform India Pvt. Ltd