Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 v. Anshika Investment Pvt. Ltd.through:none

$~6 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +ITA 424/2017 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 ..... AppellantThrough:Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Sr. StandingCounsel. Versus ANSHIKA INVESTMENT PVT. LTD.Through:None. ..... Respondent CORAM:JUSTICE S.MURALIDHARJUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R%03.07.2017 CM No. 22434/2017 (exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. -CM No. 22435/2017 (delay in refiling) 2. For the reasons stated therein, this application is allowed. The delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned. CM No. 22433/2017 (delay in filing) 3. For the reasons stated therein, this application is allowed. The delay infiling the appeal is condoned. ITA No. 424/2017 4. This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’)filed by the Revenue against an order dated 5[th]September, 2016 passed by ITA 424 of 2017 the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 3340/Del./2013 forthe Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2009-10. 5. The issue urged by the Revenue in this appeal concerns the deletion of theaddition made by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) on account of allegedunexplained credit under section 68 of the Act. The deletion was ordered bythe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT(A)’] by the order dated7[th]March 2013, which order was confirmed by the ITAT by the impugnedorder dismissing the Revenue’s appeal on this aspect. 6. We have heard the submission of Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, learned SeniorStanding Counsel for the Revenue. We have perused the orders passed bythe AO, the CIT(A) and the ITAT. 7. The CIT(A), after examining the assessment record, concluded thatsufficient documentary evidence had been adduced by the Assessee beforethe AO. However, the AO had failed to make any enquiry into the matter.Therefore, the CIT(A) deleted the addition. 8. The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal by relying on an earlier orderof the ITAT in the Assessee’s own case for AY 2006-07. Further, the ITATdiscussed the merits of the case and after analysing the record concludedthat "the assessee has duly discharged the onus of proving the credit of sharecapital in its account and learned CIT(A) was fully justified in accepting thesame and in deleting the addition." 9. Having heard learned counsel for the Revenue and having perused therecord, the Court is satisfied that the conclusion reached by the CIT(A) thatthe addition under Section 68 of the Act was not justified appears to beunexceptionable. 10. No substantial question of law arises from the impugned order of theITAT. The appeal is dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J JULY 03, 2017dk PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J