$ 39 * IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 108/2020 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL)-3, ..... Appellant Through: Ms.Vibhooti Malhotra, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr.Shailender Singh, Advocate. versus M/S TANEJA DEVELOPER & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA ORDER % 18.02.2020 C.M. No. 6459/2020 (exemption) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. application stands disposed of. ITA 108/2020 & C.M. No. 6460/2020 3. There is delay of 142 days in filing appeal. We have heard learned senior standing counsel for Revenue on merits. Since we are not inclined to interfere in present appeal, we do not deem it appropriate to pass any order on application seeking condonation of delay. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:27.02.2020 16:24:50 4. revenue is in appeal against order dated 29.03.2019, passed by ITAT, Delhi C Bench in ITA No. 3952/DEL/2014 relating to Assessment Year (AY) 2005-06, wherein Tribunal rejected appeal preferred by revenue. Addition of Rs. 20 crores was sought to be made against assessee under Section 68 of IT Act on account of credit received from M/s Rangoli Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Epic Developers Pvt. Ltd. However, it transpired that no money has been received from M/s Rangoli Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. and only amount of Rs.14.5 crores was received from M/s Epic Developers Pvt. Ltd. Assessing Officer (AO) made addition of said amount of Rs.14.5 crores, received as loan from M/s Epic Developers Pvt. Ltd. on premise that credit worthiness of creditor M/s Epic Developers Pvt. Ltd. has not been established. Since, it had filed return of income as Nil, and no business had been transacted by said entity, it was held by AO that genuineness of transaction had not been proved. CIT (A) however reversed findings in following way: With regard to above observation of AO, I am of considered view that creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction is not solely dependent on return of income filed even if it is for Rs. Nil. courts have held, that if profit making apparatus is not their, then in that event source of source has to verify so as to examine genuineness of loan transaction. Accordingly, Balance Sheet of Epic Developers Pvt. Ltd. was perused and it is found that in year under consideration they have been received sum of Rs.17.35crores from following two entities, from which funds have been invested Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:27.02.2020 16:24:50 in appellant's company:- S.No. Name of Share Amount (Rs.) Assessment Holders Particulars 1 Benda Amtek ltd. 11,85,00,000 AABCB4094M 2 Amtek Auto Ltd. 5,50,00,000 AAFFA6185K From perusal of details of bank account and assessment particulars of both Benda Amtek Ltd. and Amtek Auto Ltd., it is found that Epic Developers Pvt. Ltd. is one of group entities of Amtek Ltd. and in year under consideration Benda Amtek Ltd. have returned income of Rs.1,28,24,076 and that of Amtek Auto Ltd. is to tune of Rs.10,93,50,330. Therefore, in view of source of source having come from creditworthy party, I am of considered view that AO cannot add sum of Rs.14.50 crores on account of credit received from Epit Developers Pvt. Ltd. by holding same as non-genuine loan transaction. In view of these above facts and evidences on record, addition of Rs.14.50 crores received from Epic Developers Pvt. Ltd. is considered to be unexplained and genuine transaction and hence addition so made by AO deserves to be deleted. 5. ITAT has concurred with said finding. From above, it would be seen that investor company, namely, M/s. Epic Developers Pvt. Ltd. was one of group entities of Benda Amtek Ltd. and Amtek Auto Ltd. and both had substantial returned income in year in question of Rs.1,28,24,076/- and Rs. 10,93,50,350/-. Therefore, there was no reason to doubt either credit worthiness of investor or genuineness of transaction. aforesaid findings are purely factual in nature and do not raise any substantial question of law for consideration of this Court. We do not find any reason to interfere with impugned order. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:27.02.2020 16:24:50 6. appeal is accordingly dismissed. VIPIN SANGHI, J SANJEEV NARULA, J FEBRUARY 18, 2020 v Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:27.02.2020 16:24:50 Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, (Central)-3 v. Taneja Developer & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd