Neutral Citation No: 2022/Dhc/004149 v. Consequently, This Court Is Of The View That No Substantial Question Oflaw Arises For Consideration In The Present Appeal. Accordingly, The Presentappeal Along

$~95 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +ITA 386/2022 & CM APPLs.43641-43642/2022 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7..... AppellantThrough:Mr. Puneet Rai and Ms. AdeebaMujahid, Advocates for Revenueversus SATKAR INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD...... Respondent Through:None %Date of Decision: 10[th]October, 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHANHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J (Oral): 1.Present Income Tax Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated25[th]November, 2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 1198/Del./2017 for the Assessment Year 2012-13.2.Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the ITAT has erred indeleting the additions of Rs.10,15,00,000/- which was made by theAssessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short‘Act’) on account of unexplained share premium and share capital since theessential ingredients of Section 68 such as identity & credit worthiness ofthe shareholders and genuineness of the transaction were not established bythe Assessee. 3.He further states that the ITAT has erred in deleting the additions ofRs.10,15,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the ITA 386/2022Page 1 of 3 Act, while ignoring the fact that during the assessment proceedings theAssessee had failed to produce controlling persons of share applicantcompanies along with supportive documentary evidence for examinationand field enquiries in respect of share applicant companies revealed thatsuch companies never existed on given addresses. 4.He states that the ITAT has also erred in holding that since this is thefirst year of operation of the Assessee it can’t be said that the Assessee hasbrought its unaccounted funds through these investor companies as bogusshare capital or share premium. He further contends that the ITAT hasignored the fact that in its first year there could have been no valid reasonfor the said investors to pay such high amount of premiums. 5.However, a perusal of the paper book reveals that both the appellateauthorities below have recorded concurrent findings of facts that as many aseight out of nineteen investor companies were assessed under Section 143(3)of the Act in the same Assessment Year and the concerned AssessingOfficers had verified their investments while calculating the disallowanceunder Section 14A on the basis of 0.5% of the average investments. Theappellate authorities below have also recorded that the entire amount hadbeen received by the assessee company by account payee cheques ordemand drafts and that nothing has been brought on record by the Revenuethat these orders under Section 143(3) passed by the investor companies aresubject to proceedings under Section 147 or Section 263 of the Act. 6.Consequently, this Court is in agreement with the factual finding ofthe appellate authorities below that the identity, credit worthiness andgenuineness of the transaction could not be doubted and that it cannot besaid that the Assessee company had brought in its own unaccounted funds ITA 386/2022 Page 2 of 3 through these investor companies as bogus share capital or share premium. 6.Consequently, this Court is in agreement with the factual finding ofthe appellate authorities below that the identity, credit worthiness andgenuineness of the transaction could not be doubted and that it cannot besaid that the Assessee company had brought in its own unaccounted funds ITA 386/2022 Page 2 of 3 through these investor companies as bogus share capital or share premium. 7.TheSupremeCourtinRamKumarAggarwal&Anr.vs. Thawar Das (through LRs), (1999) 7 SCC 303 has reiterated that underSection 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure the jurisdiction of the HighCourt to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below is confined tohearing on substantial question of law and interference with finding offact is not warranted if it involves re-appreciation of evidence. Further, theSupreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Khalsa Motor Limited &Ors., (1990) 4 SCC 659 has held that the High Court was not justified in lawin reversing, in second appeal, the concurrent finding of the fact recorded byboth the Courts below. The Supreme Court in Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs.Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545 has also held that “in a case where from agiven set of circumstances two inferences of fact are possible, the one drawnby the lower appellate court will not be interfered by the High Court insecond appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible.” It has alsobeen held that there is a difference between a question of law and a“substantial question of law”. 8.Consequently, this Court is of the view that no substantial question oflaw arises for consideration in the present appeal. Accordingly, the presentappeal along with applications is dismissed. MANMOHAN, J OCTOBER 10, 2022AS MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J ITA 386/2022