Pr. Commissioner Of Incometax-06 v. Nandan Auto Tech Ltd. (Formerly Known As Gargforgings And Casting Ltd

$~6 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 390/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-06 ..... AppellantThrough:Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, SeniorStanding Counsel for Revenue. Versus NANDAN AUTO TECH LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GARGFORGINGS AND CASTING LTD.)..... Respondent Through:Mr. Ved Jain, Mr.Pranjal Srivastava, Advocates. CORAM:JUSTICE S.MURALIDHARJUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R14.09.2017 % 1. The Revenue is in appeal against an order dated 30[th]September, 2015passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA Nos.3166/DEL/2009 & 3203/DEL/2009 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2000-01. 2. The issue urged by the Revenue is whether the ITAT was justified indeleting the additions of Rs. 16,34,83,676/- and Rs.61,69,546/- made by theAssessing Officer (‘AO’) further restricted to Rs. 80,22,802/- by theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] on account of allegedbogus purchases and export sales under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act(‘Act’)? 3. The basis for the additions by the AO was that purchases had allegedlybeen made by the Assessee from four bogus entities. It was further allegedthat the corresponding sales made thereafter were also to bogus entities. TheAO issued notice to the Assessee under Section 148 of the Act for reopeningthe assessment for the AY in question on the basis of a report of theDirectorate of Revenue Intelligence (‘DRI’) which ultimately resulted in aclosure report being filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation in thecriminal Court. Despite the AO being aware of the above development, hedid not himself undertake any inquiry into the question whether thepurchases and sales were made from and to bogus entities. 4. The CIT (A) had in the appeal by the Assessee restricted the additions topeak credits and this led both the Revenue and the Assessee to also file anappeal before the ITAT. The ITAT in the impugned order common to bothappeals made a reference to the above fact and held that the additions madeby the AO cannot be sustained in law. 5. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, the Court is satisfied thatthe impugned order passed by the ITAT does not suffer from any legalinfirmity. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appealis accordingly dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J. SEPTEMBER 14, 2017j PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.