In Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Delhi-Xxi v. Subhash Sharma, the High Court (2016) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: The question urged by the Revenue is whether the ITAT was justified in holding that no addition could be made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of retracted statement of the Assessee without any corroborative evidence.
Decision: The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA 519/2016
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-DELHI-XXI
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. P. Roy Chaudhuri, Sr. Standing Counsel.
versus
SUBHASH SHARMA
Through
CORAM:JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI O R D E R% 03.08.2016
..... Respondent
CM No. 27709/2016 (Exemption)
1. Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
-CM No. 27711/2016 (condonation of delay in refiling) & 27710/2016(condonation of delay in filing)
2. For the reasons given in the applications the delay in filing and re-filing
of the appeal is condoned.
3. The applications are allowed.
ITA No. 519/2016
4. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 14[th]October, 2015 passed in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 1573/Del/2012 relating to the Assessment Year 2007-08.
5. The question urged by the Revenue is whether the ITAT was justified in holding that no addition could be made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of retracted statement of the Assessee without any corroborative evidence.
6. Having perused the impugned order of the ITAT, which correctly analyses the facts and the legal position as explained in the decisions discussed in the impugned order, the Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
S.MURALIDHAR, J
AUGUST 03, 2016/kk
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.