Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 v. A.r. Leasing Pvt. Ltd.through:none

$~1 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +ITA 361/2017 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3..... AppellantThrough:Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Sr. StandingCounsel. versus A.R. LEASING PVT. LTD.Through:None. ..... Respondent CORAM:JUSTICE S.MURALIDHARJUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R%03.07.2017 -CM No. 17091/2017 (delay in refiling) 1. For the reasons stated therein, this application is allowed. The delay inre-filing the appeal is condoned. CM No. 17090/2017 (delay in filing) 2. For the reasons stated therein, this application is allowed. The delay infiling the appeal is condoned. ITA No. 361/2017 3. 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, 2016passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No.3438/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2009-10. 4. The issue urged by the Revenue in this appeal concerns the deletion ofthe addition made by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) on account of allegedunexplained credit under section 68 of the Act. The deletion was orderedby the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘CIT(A)’) by the order ITA 361/2017 dated 7[th]March 2013, which order was confirmed by the ITAT by theimpugned order dismissing the Revenue’s appeal on this aspect. 5. 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. The ITAT dismissed the Revenue'sappeal by relying on an earlier order of the ITAT in the Assessee’s owncase for AY 2006-07 in ITA No. 524/Del/2014 (Commissioner ofIncome Tax-III v. A.R. Leasing Pvt. Ltd.). That order of the ITAT wasconfirmed by this Court by dismissing the Revenue’s further appeal. 6. Mr. Chaudhary nevertheless insisted that since there was noconsideration of the issue on merits, the present case should be remandedto the ITAT for a fresh consideration. 7. The CIT (A) has in para 9.1 of his order noted that the Assessee hadplaced before the AO the following documents of the investingcompanies: Memorandum of Association, Articles of Association,certificates of incorporation, bank accounts indicating the source ofpayment, copy of confirmations, Income Tax particulars, audited balancesheets, Profit and Loss Account etc. However, the AO disregarded theabove documents and came to the conclusion that transaction of receivingmoney as share capital was not a genuine one primarily because thepremium charged by the Assessee was much higher than the prevalentmarket trend. As rightly observed by the CIT (A) unless the AO hadbrought on record some material to show that confirmation and otherevidence placed by the Assessee was not genuine, he could not havesimply discarded the documents produced by the Assessee. 8. The Court too finds that there is no discussion of the above documentsby the AO. In the circumstances, the conclusion reached by the CIT(A)that the addition under Section 68 of the Act was not justified appears tobe unexceptionable. 9. 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