Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax,Central- Ii v. Prime Infoways Pvt. Ltd

$~1 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 803/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL- II..... AppellantThrough: Mr. Ashok K. Manchanda, Adv. versus PRIME INFOWAYS PVT. LTD. ..... RespondentThrough: Mr. Inder Paul Bansal and Mr. VivekBansal, Advs. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI O R D E R%06.01.2017 In this case the Revenue urges that deletion of two amounts i.e.` 50 lacs and ` 47.02 lacs, added in the course of the assessmentunder Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) iserroneous. Further to search and seizure proceedings, in respect ofunrelated party, based upon materials seized, queries were made inthe course of the regular proceedings in the present case forAssessment Year (AY) 2009-10. The Assessing Officer (AO) added` 47.02 lacs on account of suspect and allegedly bogus transactionsbased upon the chart seized in search and seizure proceeding, of thethird parties out of the 66 names found therein. Another amount of ` 50 lacs was added on account of suspect payment attributed to M/sStalwarts Realtors Pvt. Ltd. The assessee, however, succeeded in the appeal before theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). As to the amount of ` 47.02lacs it was firstly observed that the material was seized in respect of athird party and its evidentiary value could not have been facial. Inother words, the AO and the other parties were under a duty to makeappropriate further inquiries. Moreover, the ITAT also noticed thatthe chart contained details of amounts paid by cheques by thirdparties which were never subjected to investigation. In addition, theinquiries made from searched parties or the statements were madeavailable to the assessee. In these circumstances, the mere assumptionthat some of the parties were bogus and that the amounts attributed tothem were suspect could not be sustained. So far as M/s Stalwarts Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and the amount of `50 lacs added to its account was concerned, the ITAT noticed that thesaid amount had been assessed to income and relied upon its ownorder in ITA No. 2466/Del/2013 dated 13.06.2016. It was, therefore,concluded that since the amount was shown by M/s Stalwarts RealtorsPvt. Ltd. and in fact accounted for, the question of it being bogus orsuspect in the hands of the assessee did not arise. This Court has carefully considered the submissions on behalfof the Revenue and the grounds urged in support of the appeal, and isof the opinion that findings on both questions are entirely factual.Sans any manifest perversity – of which there is none, the Court doesnot wish to interfere with the findings of fact of a final order like the ITAT. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is, therefore,dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J JANUARY 06, 2017/kk NAJMI WAZIRI, J