Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, (Central )-1, New Delhi v. Mauria Udyog Limited
[Citation -2019-LL-0723-55]

Citation 2019-LL-0723-55
Appellant Name Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, (Central )-1, New Delhi
Respondent Name Mauria Udyog Limited
Court HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 23/07/2019
Assessment Year 2013-14
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags unexplained share application money • unexplained cash • hire charges • rent
Bot Summary: The first question sought to be urged is whether the ITAT was right in deleting an addition of Rs.3.28 crores made by the Assessing Officer on the ground of unexplained cash transactions between the Assessee and the Amrapali Group 3. The ITAT has in the impugned order analyzed the provisions of Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and observed that one of the primary requirements for attracting that provisions is that the Assessee is found to be owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article. On facts, the ITAT had found that the Assesee was never found to be in possession of any real money. The addition having been made only on the strength of some notings found in some file extracted from the computer of Sh. Rohtash, clearly establish that the provisions of section 69A of the Act do not apply. The CIT accepted the explanation offered by the Assessee and came to the conclusion that the Assessee had satisfactorily explained to the AO that was in the normal course of business and nothing adverse was found so as to conclude that the source of money used for payment to the Assessee was unaccounted. The third issue is whether the ITAT was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 5 lakhs on account of disallowance of bogus expenses 8. The ITAT noted that the said addition was made on the premise that the Assessee had claimed rent payment to M/s Trinity Shipping and Allied Services Pvt. Ltd. which according to the AO was not properly explained.


IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA 586/2019 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL )-1, NEW DELHI Appellant Through: Ms.Lakshmi Gurung Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Siddharth Gupta, Advocate. versus M/S MAURIA UDYOG LIMITED Respondent Through: Mr.Kislaya Parashar, Mrs.Mekhala Benny and Ms. Umang Luthra, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH ORDER 23.07.2019 1. This is appeal by Revenue against order dated 29 th November, 2018 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 6660/Del/2016 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 2. first question sought to be urged is whether ITAT was right in deleting addition of Rs.3.28 crores made by Assessing Officer (AO) on ground of unexplained cash transactions between Assessee and Amrapali Group? 3. ITAT has in impugned order analyzed provisions of Section 69A of Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ) and observed that one of primary requirements for attracting that provisions is that Assessee is found to be owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article . 4. On facts, ITAT had found that Assesee was never found to be in possession of any real money. addition having been made only on strength of some notings found in some file extracted from computer of Sh. Rohtash, clearly establish that provisions of section 69A of Act do not apply. It was further found that on date of receipt of impugned amount, same was returned to Amrapali Group by M/s Bihari Ji Group. 5. determination by ITAT is based on facts and there is nothing to indicate that it is perverse. 6. second issue concerns deletion of addition of Rs.6 crores made by AO on account of unexplained share application money under Section 68 of Act. CIT (A) accepted explanation offered by Assessee and came to conclusion that Assessee had satisfactorily explained to AO that was in normal course of business and nothing adverse was found so as to conclude that source of money used for payment to Assessee was unaccounted. This again is factual determination and does not give rise to any substantial question of law. 7. third issue is whether ITAT was right in deleting addition of Rs. 5 lakhs on account of disallowance of bogus expenses? 8. ITAT noted that said addition was made on premise that Assessee had claimed rent payment to M/s Trinity Shipping and Allied Services Pvt. Ltd. which according to AO was not properly explained. CIT (A), however, deleted addition after finding that no rent or hire charges were in fact paid to either of above entities. Before ITAT, Revenue was unable to show anything to contrary. 9. This too being purely factual determination concurrently by CIT (A) and ITAT in favour of Assessee, no substantial question of law arises. 10. appeal is, therefore, dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J. TALWANT SINGH, J. JULY 23, 2019 Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, (Central )-1, New Delhi v. Mauria Udyog Limited
Report Error