ITA-465-2018 1 102 IN HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-465-2018 Date of Decision: 16.01.2020 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, LUDHIANA APPELLANT VERSUS M/S INCITE HOMECARE P. LTD. RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present: Mr. Amrinder Singh, Advocate for appellant. AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) 1. appeal has been filed against order of CIT (A) and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby two additions made by Assessing Officer (AO) were deleted. issue relates to disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Admittedly, assessee has one bank account which consists of mixed funds. AO held that assessee was not able to satisfy that advances which were made for purchase of land and investment in construction of godown were entitled to benefit of Section 36(1)(iii) of Act. findings were reversed by Appellate Authorities (except that CIT (A)) added sum of Rs. 4,80,000/- and deleted balance additions). CIT(A) gave categoric finding that funds used for purchase of land and construction were interest free funds and were not those which were obtained as loan from bank. This finding on fact has been upheld by Tribunal. SHABHA 2020.01.31 12:11 I attest to accuracy and integrity of this document ITA-465-2018 2 Learned counsel for petitioner is not in position to deny that matter is squarely covered by judgments of S.A. Builders Limited Versus CIT (Appeals) and another; 2007 (15) SCC 147 and Bright Enterprises (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax; 2016 (381) ITR 107. 1. In view of above, first question is answered in negative. 2. As regard question No. 2, argument is Rs.3,87,50,000/- which was received as share capital from two companies were accommodation entries. ground taken by AO was that those investors had sufficient funds yet they have been showing meagre profit from their business. Appellate Authorities noticed that on asking of AO, not only all financers but even directors of company were produced. Moreover, returns of those assessees had been accepted by revenue and held that in these circumstances share money investment could not be deemed to have been paper transaction or accommodation entry. Therefore, we find no reason to give different view and both questions are answered in negative. Consequently, appeal is dismissed. [AJAY TEWARI] JUDGE [AVNEESH JHINGAN] th 16 January, 2020 JUDGE shabha Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SHABHA 2020.01.31 12:11 I attest to accuracy and integrity of this document Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-3, Ludhiana v. Incite Homecare P. Ltd